Armitage - "Where were you driving which car at 11am on 18th August 2006? Do you keep records or do you just "know"?"
This is just a hoary old excuse for laziness and law avoidance.
There was a piece in the news about heroin on prescription to addicts and I thought - on all hopital wards there's what's known as a Controlled Drugs Cabinet (could this be a metaphor for a car, I wonder?) and on every shift there is a Key Holder ( this might be a metaphor for a Registered keeper)
At any time during the shift the Key Holder could give the key to another person (this could be the car driver) and ask them to get drugs.
When that person goes to the drugs cabinet they must sign a book saying what they have taken out. - timed, dated, signed
The Key Holder remains responsible for the key although the person who gets the drugs is responsible for their own actions.
It ain't hard, it's common sense, if you are responsible for a vehicle with multiple potential users you have a 'duty' to be aware of their activities, they are under an obligation to abide by the law
Now, we'd all love to shoot up a load of smack when we're feelin' down but you you can see how this system might stop us doing that
But you say this is beyond the wit of car owners to know who is driving... good thing there's no responsibilty involved with driving a car then eh?
|
"This is just a hoary old excuse for laziness and law avoidance."
Hear hear. Speed limits may be annoying, non-sensical and illogical. Camera's are petty, over simplistic and don't catch those dangerous or erratic drivers who would be caught by real police.
But really, it's not hard to keep to limits, and it's not hard to remember who was driving. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and a liar.
|
"Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and a liar"
Hmm, having read that, I'd like to back-peddle a little. Might be a bit strong, but I stand by the general thrust.
|
|
|
"But really, it's not hard to keep to limits, and it's not hard to remember who was driving. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and a liar.
An idiot OR a liar I suggest
Mini - I find it hard to draw any useful similarity between a cupboard full of potentailly lethal drugs and a car which might or might not be driven over the speed limit. The people in charge of the drugs are salaried Public Servants with statutory duties and responsibilities laid down by their employers and by H&S legislation. There is no such responsibility or duty of care required of car owners.
I might be able to find out where I was on 18th August, by refernce to my appoinments diary but I don't have to be able to do so and I am not breaking any law if I can't. Will you be the first in the line for an implanted tracking chip when they are introduced?
|
There's no need for the 'Conspiracy Theory" line to be wheeled out either -
Just because I am not obliged by statute to do something does not mean I don't do it
A car a lethal weapon in the wrong hands - Drugs do good in the right hands and are lethal in the wrong hands - there's a similarity don't you think?
Helathcare professionals do not abide by those rules just because the law/employer says so
They do it because it makes sense and is right to do so
They have a well-developed sense of objective moral responsibilty for the potential effects of their actions on the lives of others
|
I never mentioned Conspiracy Theory - are you referring to someone else's post?
If you don't have to do something by statute that puts you in the position of having a choice - that is what a democracy is all about. You do what you want, within the law, but without an obligation to do so, and anybody else can do, or not do, what they like, within the law. Keeping a note of where I am all year might be useful but not to me personally, and is not required of me
Drugs in a hospital are not lethal, except in the very few cases where they are mis-prescribed or the wrong dose is given.Health care professional abide by the rules because they will be disciplined if they don't; they don't have a choice in the matter! I am speaking as someone who works for the NHS.
There is no direct or valid comparison betwen drugs locked in a cupboard in a hospital, with the key in the control of professionals (right hands), and supermodels sniffing stuff in a disco toilet, (wrong hands)
|
"Tracking Chips" - Conspiracy theory -
I think you have, by default admitted that keeping a note of who drives tour car would be 'useful' in that it may help you avoid fine/points but you have decided not to do it - that is your informed choice
It does not make it 'objectively' not worth doing because objectively it has a value
So - lets have this straight - if healthcare professionals were not obligated by law to deal properly and professionally with drugs - they wouldn't!!!
What world are you living in? Do you want to think about that again and think about the consequences if that were true?
Do you really believe that ?
By the way - working for the NHS does not lend you any authority - I wouldn't ask an NHS accountant for advice on wound hygiene
Oh and they do still have a choice - but unlike you they seem to understand that the consequences do not justify the action
I never made that comparison - it has no place in the discussion - don't get distracted
|
I never made that comparison - it has no place in the discussion - don't get distracted
AS's point was no less relevant than you're own. What you are saying - whether you realise it or not - is that you can see no situation where someone could possibly not remember where they were and what they were doing at a specific time 3 months or more ago.
You can argue as much as you like that people SHOULD sign in and out of the drivers seat of their car, but the vast majority don't, so it comes down to memory, plain and simple. I certainly don't remember 3 months ago that clearly, and - unless there was some specific jog to the memory, like a holiday or something - I'd be very surprised at anyone who could.
|
Tracking chip = Mobile phone switched on
Log of driving might be useful - not to me personally.
The main reason health professionals do what they do and how they do it is because it is their duty. They may get a nice a warm feeling from doing their job well but that is a bonus, not a reason for so doing.
Working in the NHS gives a view on drug handing, I see it every day I am at work..
|
I hate bringing personal details into these things because a well reasoned argument shouldn't depend on whether anyone has 'personal' involvement
A well reasoned argument shold be, exactly what it says it is - a well reasoned argument
I was a nurse for some time and I obeyed the rules because that was the proper, safe way to do my job, it ensured people were not put at unnecessary risk of danger and that they were helped as best as possible to recover
It may be true to say that few people do something that doesn't benefit them in some way and certainly healthcare professionals don't do it for the money!
If they get a nice warm feeling and it keeps them doing it then I'm glad - it didn't keep me doing it.
Back to the point - a log of driving will become useful to you personally on the day you are done for speeding
As I said in my other post - it is Your responsibility, as Owner to care for your vehicle and its use
|
A well reasoned argument is a well reasoned argument, I agree.
So why do your posts adopt such an aggressive, dare I say insulting tone?
What you are arguing is that drivers should keep logs of who is driving their car at all times so as to make it easier for the state to prosecute them.
If that is the sort of relationship between individual and state that you want to see then fine.
I do not!
|
"A well reasoned argument is a well reasoned argument, I agree.
So why do your posts adopt such an aggressive, dare I say insulting tone?"
Perhaps because you have misrepresented my argument.
"What you are arguing is that drivers should keep logs of who is driving their car at all times so as to make it easier for the state to prosecute them."
I haven't said that at all. I have implied that if it is your intention to evade by all means possible any punishment for speeding (when you accept that you have been speeding) then the state has my full backing and all my taxes to come down on you like a tone of bricks.
If, on the other hand, you have been wrongly accused, then a log would certainly help you apportion the blame to the driver you 'claim' was using the vehicle.
Don't keep a log - if you are done for speeding pay the fine and take the points - you're happy, I'm happy.
What grieves me is when people, who are clearly saying I know best about what speed is safe, get done for speeding and then try and worm their way out of it.
Saying - "i can't remember who was driving - and what's more I shouldn't have to" in a mightily wronged tone - just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.
You can't remember who was driving,
fair enough says your questioner, do you know how many others were driving?
Oh no you say it's only my car. I don't bother about who drives it. Any old Tom Dick or Harry can have a go in my car
You see - that defence - it just doesn't hold water does it?
"If that is the sort of relationship between individual and state that you want to see then fine.
I do not!"
I would like to see a relationship with the state where you obeyed the laws the state (that's us by the way incl. you) decided on and didn't try to pull the wool over peoples' eyes and then 'the state' could stop wasting my money chasing you through the court.
When all along all you want to do is go faster - not fair is it?
You don't give a stuff about whether it's right or safe for you or any Tom Dick or Harry that you don't know or care about, bombing along in your motor, to go faster do you though?
|
|
I'm not saying that at all -
I don't remember where or what I was doing three months ago but I know I am one of only two drivers of my car so it's not exactly complicated
What I am saying is:
That if you clearly place yourself in a situation where there are multiple drivers of your vehicle's then, unless you want to pay any fines or be responsible for their actions in your vehicle, it would be good practice, and would protect you and other users, to keep a log of who.when/where users.
I mean, it's straightforward, a hire company would do this and if you've got so many users of your vehicle that you don't know who was driving when - well how are you going to know who spilt coffee all over your leather seats
Stop evading - Your car - Your responsibility - That's what I'm saying whether you realise it or not
|
|
|
|
I think I aught to keep a log of every sharp knife, golf club, cricket bat, hammer etc in my possession or residing on my property. As with drugs, cars etc they are all lethal weapons in the wrong hands or used for the wrong purpose.
Some of us don't keep a diary because we don't want to.
My wife has the car, today. Where she is now or has been, or even might be going I don't know. In the sense of logging where and who was driving it, I haven't the slightest interest.
I have things I would rather do with my time than try to account for my past.
Tiff got off, good on him.
|
"If they get a nice warm feeling and it keeps them doing it then I'm glad - it didn't keep me doing it."
Obviously not - your USED to be a nurse!
|
You understand tenses! - amazing
My point was that sometimes a warm happy feeling doesn't keep food on the table - !
And when I did my job I did it properly because doing the right thing the right way is important and what makes the world a bearable place
I didn't do just because I was told to or I was paid to
Can I assume that's why you do your job? No doubt just as begrudgingly too?
|
Which takes us away from
Your Car - Your responsibilty
or are you still trying to dodge that?
|
|
I think if you pop down your local gun club they might ask you to sign out the 12 bore - although I don't know why - who cares if you pop a few caps - so long as your happy
We all have better things to do than account for your past
So I take it you'll just accept the fine and points - good on yer
|
Don't quite see where a gun club comes into it.
What is a cap, in a gun context?
I can account for my own past unassisted.
What fine - what points?
What are you on?
|
|
Your car - your responsibility, can you get back to justifying why you don't have to know who is driving your car?
|
|
He might know today mini 30, but why should he have to remember next week or next month?
|
He might know today mini 30, but why should he have to remember next week or next month?
Because unless we all want the intrusion of forward facing cameras allowing it to be proven who was driving, if it can be shown that a car was speeding, it is fair to assume that the registered keeper was driving, and should shoulder the blame. If they do not wish to, then it is in their interest to prove otherwise.
|
it is fair toassume that the registered keeper was driving, and should shoulder the blame.
Blame for what? Triggering a damnfool piece of surveillance equipment that may be out of adjustment? 'Blame' is a much abused word and indeed an over-used concept.
|
Then challenge them to prove it's adjusted properly. Force them to actually play their cards right, don't waste the courts time and everyone's money by trying to wriggle out of it.
I'll say again. Keeping to speed limits is trivial, it's not hard, if you don't then you should accept that you've got a chance of being fined. If you don't like it, protest to your MP!
|
LUD you may be interested in this news re Out of Adjustment!
Having tested the opto digital timer on a number of Gatso speed camera sites including Newtown Birmingham, Walsall and Cannock area Mr Edgar soon discovered that well over 80% of them are inaccurate, in particular there are serious timing errors between the two flashes which are supposed to flash at exactly half a second apart (500 milli seconds) thus the recorded distance a vehicle has travelled relative to the parallel road markings are inaccurate. In the tests which Mr Edgar has conducted the timings are anything but accurate, typically 0.63 seconds, needless to say this inaccuracy then reflects on the distance a vehicle has travelled thus creating the illusion (for the benefit of the prosecution) that a vehicle has travelled much faster than it actually did, for instance a vehicle travelling at 35 mph would have travelled an extra 2.03 metres when the timing between the two flashes is 0.63 seconds and that puts the vehicle in the next set of parallel line markings which are spaced 2 metres apart.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Since these serious inaccuracies clearly affect the reliability of the actual recorded speed of a vehicle the photographic evidence cannot be relied on by the prosecution as there is reasonable doubt concerning the accuracy of the photographic evidence.
Just because something is put on the side of the road we can'r assume that it is correct
|
Lud, I am truly not saying he has to, I am not imposing logs on anyone
but it's not reasonable to put the onus on others to prove who was driving your car if that excuse is simply being used to 'evade' conviction
If you are responsible for a vehicle I would argue, you have a duty to know who is driving it,
certainly you have a duty of care to them - your vehicle must be safe
and you have a duty to other road users - is the driver safe
I would happily say to anyone driving any vehicle belonging to me - "Speed in my car - and YOU will pay - not me"
I will make a note of when they had my car and they will pay
Once bitten - twice shy
So when people use this "why should I have to care or keep records" as a defence
My automatic reaction - is "there speaks a guilty man"
|
but it's not reasonable to put the onus on others to prove who was driving your car if that excuse is simply being used to 'evade' conviction
But how do you know it's just an excuse, and they do in fact not remember who was driving? And if they don't remember, and there's no proof either way of who was driving, then why is it justified to charge the registered keeper - someone who quite possibly has committed no crime?
And to someone who said "accept the invasion of privacy that is a forward facing camera"! Lol! Why would anyone be more upset to be photographed from the front than the back? And at least in that case there would be PROOF.
|
There are posters on these boards who openly admit it's just an excuse, that they know they've been speeding but they are going to try and get away with it.
I think it's justified to charge the Registered Keeper, because it is their vehicle, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is fair to assume they were driving it.
I don't think it is fair to assume that in the absence of evidence of the registered keeper driving then it must have been someone else.
I believe you should take responsibility for your car, your dog and your kids
|
There are posters on these boards who openly admit it's just an excuse, that they know they've been speeding but they are going to try and get away with it.
So because one person is a liar, every person should be labelled as such?
I think it's justified to charge the Registered Keeper, because it is their vehicle, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is fair to assume they were driving it.
But if that car is in fact driven by more than one person, then once again, there's no reason to assume which of those people was driving, unless there's proof.
I don't think it is fair to assume that in the absence of evidence of the registered keeper driving then it must have been someone else.
But ONCE AGAIN you're not assuming that someone else was driving, you're not assuming ANYTHING. As is correct, there should be no assumptions.
I believe you should take responsibility for your car, your dog and your kids
Another irrelevant soundbite.
|
The whole point of this thread still comes back to a speed camera rarely identifies the driver.
The request to know who is driving means someone can be identified whilst not under Police caution, who is later prosecuted. I have always believed you are innocent until proven guilty. By providing the information as to who was driving is beyond our normal concept of freedom within the law.
There is no legal obligation to keep a log in a vehicle to identify who was driving a vehicle, so unless mini 30 owner can explain why anyone should be forced to do something in excess of the requirements of the law, he had better drop his arguement.
Refering back to TN, I feel he has every right to complain about being prosecuted for speeding. The original notification was never delivered - it may have been posted, but why are these important pieces of paper not sent recorded delivery?
In TN's case is it fair to expect him to remember exactly which road the car travelled on at a specific time on a particular day some months previously. It might be a road you have never used before and do not know or remember it, or it may be a road you travel frequently on as one of many drivers of the same vehicle.
From my reading of the news reports of this case and in this thread I feel the magistrates gave him the benefit of the doubt because of these factors. He employed an expensive solicitor, which probably cost him far more than any fine would have done, and avoided 3 points on his licence. He used arguements within the law and if he had lost I feel sure he would have been slated in the news.
There is never a cut and dried answer as to whether it is worth going to court to plead your case. It does depend very heavily on your beliefs - if you maintain you are innocent and consider accepting any penalty as totally wrong then you will fight it all the way. Many people accept they were speeding and accept the fine and points as it is a lesser penalty than going to court. Thankfully we are all different and make our choices accordingly.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
"There is no legal obligation to keep a log in a vehicle to identify who was driving a vehicle, so unless mini 30 owner can explain why anyone should be forced to do something in excess of the requirements of the law, he had better drop his arguement."
I wish you had actually read all the previous posts. I am not arguing that people should keep logs.
I have repeatedly said that.
I think it is fair to ask anyone (even the mighty TN) to remeber who was driving their car at any time in the past - It is after all your car - So make it your business to know - this is not saying keep a log - this is saying do that by whatever means you see fit - if it's a log, that's your choice, I know because I restrict the drivers
When someone say's "I can't remeber who was driving on a specific night" my response would be
"Is it fair to assume it was you as you are the registered keeper?"
If they say no my next question would be "Who do you believe it was?
If the answer is "I don't know."
Then they are essentially inviting the lawyer to ask "Was it Mr.....?" Was it Mr....y"
"So Mr Speeder if you know who it wasn't might I suggest that you tell me who it actually was?"
"I don't know who was driving" is a dodge - unless you are in the position of DP who was using the photo to clarify that bearing in mind he knew it was one of two people
|
>>I think it is fair to ask anyone (even the mighty TN) to remeber who was driving their car at any time in the past - It is after all your car - So make it your business to know - this is not saying keep a log - this is saying do that by whatever means you see fit - if it's a log, that's your choice, I know because I restrict the drivers
Oh, mini 30 owner, you must try and see the world from all angles.
Think of a large company that has a pool of cars that any of the authorised drivers can use. One vehicle in particular, a small town car, is used by virtually everyone on a daily basis for local needs - going out to buy some sandwiches, milk, going to the post office, picking up some parts, etc. Would this be practical to log every use of the vehicle and who should maintain that every use was logged? The car might be owned by a lease company, registered to either the company or someone in the company who may only use it infrequently. So would it be right and fair to fine and penalise the registered keeper? No it would not.
If the speed camera does not identify the face of the driver, then any prosecution should fail on the basis that the driver could not be identified. If the registered keeper admits his excess speed then that is his choice. It should not be up to the registered keeper to do the job of the law enforcement agency to identify the driver. As I stated in an earlier post we have a legal system based upon the premise that assumes you are innocent until proven guilty. Speed cameras, due to their money earning potential, are trying to persuade the general public that as a vehicle has broken a speed limit, someone must pay. They assume that as they have evidence of an offence, then the registered keeper MUST assist them in identifying the driver.
Recently I had an incidence of shoplifting. I identified the culprit with 99% certainty, provided the Police with name address, phone number. Their reaction was as expected, unless I can provide either video footage or an independant witness or locate the goods in their possession - we shall take no further action. Even if I was 100% certain they would still take no action. There is not sufficient evidence if the culprit says it was not them.
Relating this level of evidence to a camera photo for speeding, then virtually all speeding fines should fail if the photo does not identify the driver. Unfortunately we are being coerced to provide information, because we are relying on technology too much, rather than good policing. Many years ago drivers accepted (grudgingly) speeding fines if caught and warned at the time of the offence. The chances of being caught then were fairly rare compared to today. Technology now means you can be caught many times every day. You are then notified within 14 days of the offence - even if you did not know an offence had been committed, possibly by another driver of your car. The effort that has been put into speed reduction far outweighs any benefit in reduction of road injuries, but still generates huge sums of money in excess of the cost.
Imagine you go on holiday and unknown to you someone you know borrows your car. The first you know about it is when you get home and find a speeding ticket on your door mat. How are you supposed to identify the driver? You can plead ignorance as no one was authorised to use your car and you had no way of finding out either.
What happens if your car is stolen? It breaks the speed limit before you realise it has been stolen and therefore the Police are unaware it is no longer under your charge. Should you be liable for any tickets until you notify the Police of your loss? I think not.
Do not forget that many cars are now using cloned number plates to avoid speeding and congestion charges. How would you feel if you started receiving a string of fines when you know your car has never been to that area. It is still up to you to prove you are innocent under the current system. Do you think the registered keeper of this vehicle should accept punishment for another vehicle because he cannot prove his innocence?
Maybe mini 30 owner your views will change over time, as you get older and wiser, instead of seeing everything in black and white and realising there are grey areas. One day when you are accused of something, you may be grateful to benefit from being innocent until proven guilty.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
For company cars, if the driver is not identified then someone at the company will receive the points and fine. Often this is the company secretary. Useful therefore if they don't normally drive.
So basically what you say would be unfair does actually happen.
|
"Think of a large company that has a pool of cars that any of the authorised drivers can use. One vehicle in particular, a small town car, is used by virtually everyone on a daily basis for local needs - going out to buy some sandwiches, milk, going to the post office, picking up some parts, etc. Would this be practical to log every use of the vehicle and who should maintain that every use was logged? The car might be owned by a lease company, registered to either the company or someone in the company who may only use it infrequently. So would it be right and fair to fine and penalise the registered keeper? No it would not."
If we're going to be stupid about this - haven't you heard of a clipboard and pen and a sticker on the dash saying sign it, date it and time it - that's if you don't like technology, if you want you can have an in-car camera - you'd like that
Stop pretending fleet managers or pokey little lazy brained companies can't deal with these problems - this corner-shop approach to running businesses doesn't cut the mustard with me or anyone - running out of milk!
My default position on this is an assumtion of inherent honesty in all people -
"They assume that as they have evidence of an offence, then the registered keeper MUST assist them in identifying the driver."
Yours clearly is not - you would hinder any prosecuation regardles of right or wrong - I hope you never need the help of a witness of a similar disposition to yourself
The argument regarding revenue is a different one - if you don't want to contribute - slow down
Nobody 'borrows' my car without my knowledge - that's just a crims get out
Oh wise old one - I'm not saying the current situation is perfect, come up with a better one which doesn't involve - No speed limits at all
|
In your shoplifting example -
I suggest your 'opinion' on the identity of the culprit may be less objective than a photograph
"Technology now means you can be caught many times every day." - ONLY IF YOU SPEED
|
It utterly amazes me that you can't accept this simple scenario:
A husband and wife go on a long journey. At various points during the journey, they swap drivers. Three months down the line they're asked which of them was driving on a particular stretch of road. They can't remember.
You honestly, hand-on-heart, deep down believe that it is completely impossible that they're telling the truth?
If not then I'm afraid most that you've said in this thread is proven wrong. If you do believe that, then I'm afraid you're being a bit of a fool.
|
It utterly amazes me that you can't accept this simple scenario: A husband and wife go on a long journey. At various points during the journey, they swap drivers. Three months down the line they're asked which of them was driving on a particular stretch of road. They can't remember. You honestly, hand-on-heart, deep down believe that it is completely impossible that they're telling the truth? If not then I'm afraid most that you've said in this thread is proven wrong. If you do believe that, then I'm afraid you're being a bit of a fool.
you are absolutely correct BB. Not only that British law operates (generally) on the principle that if you've done something wrong...the state has to prove it, in a court and beyond reasonable doubt.....you should not have to prove you didn't.........if you choose to, when you get a caution, you're entitled to stay schtumm...end of story.
the NIP bit with 'who is the driver.......' is anomolous and contradicts the principle of entitlement to remain quiet and not incriminate yourself........which is presumably why it's up for the European Court....... and why the Govt will fight it tooth and nail, because of the revenue worries.
|
Mr and MRS ar in the car - each knows one of them is guilty
What is the MORALLY right thing to do?
You KNOW you did wrong
Stop WEASELING out of it - take it like a man and a citizen
You don't deserve the benefits of this society if you can't face up to your responsibilities
|
Mr and MRS ar in the car - each knows one of them is guilty What is the MORALLY right thing to do? You KNOW you did wrong Stop WEASELING out of it - take it like a man and a citizen You don't deserve the benefits of this society if you can't face up to your responsibilities
Yes, they both know that one or the other of them is guilty, but neither knows which of them it is. So your solution is to just randomly decide to punish one of them, not knowing which is actually guilty? You believe it is morally right to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit? Becuase your proposal will result in that happening.
And your attempts to make this emotional with the 'weaseling' jibe are somewhat pathetic. For a start, I am speaking absolutely hypothetically, I am the only person who drives my car, so I would of course know that it was me. Doesn't mean I can't understand how something like this could happen though. Unfortunately you seem utterly blind to it.
|
I'm not blind - I'm just not a cheat
This is a petty fine of £60 - and you and your mrs are trying to slide out of it as though it's a capital offence
"randomly decide to punish one of them" - I don't think so - either of you could choose to take responsibility
YOU KNOW ONE OF YOU BROKE THE LAW
that would take a bit of spine though -
|
YOU KNOW ONE OF YOU BROKE THE LAW
But which one? We don't know, therefore you're suggesting a random proportioning of blame.
|
I suggest you act in a gentlemanly fashion and take the punishment rather than your wife
In the event that you already have points - count yourself lucky that the camera hasn't clearly identified you and allows you the luxury of choosing who will accept the punishment
Either that simply attach a charge to the speeding vehicle which means that the fine will have to be paid at some time in the future
You tell me what you think is a proper outcome for society
I presume you think you should both go scot free?
|
Sorry Armitage, those comments were for the enjoyment of MJM.
Now, you were saying... I believe I should be able to go out speeding, get photographed doing it, but escape punishment because I can claim someone else was driving and they can't prove otherwise and that generally that should be fine with everyone else because I'm a really dood driver and able to speed safely unlike all you plebs that the laws actually apply to........?
|
|
Mini 30, much as I completely agree with pretty much everything you're saying, is there any point getting personal about this?
|
I agree that on the whole telling a bunch of complicated porkies and having to look the magistrate in the eye while you do it is a bit like hard work just to save 60 quid and three points. However, if Tiff Needell already had 11 points it may well have been worth his while to spend a bit of financial and emotional and moral capital to keep his driving licence.
I have to say too that so many people are habitual liars about almost everything that they must have difficulty understanding what all the argument is about in this thread.
|
Fair point Gordon M, it's probably 'banging my head against brick wall' time anyway
|
My car got caught on a mobile camera (48 in a 40) and I knew I hadn't driven it that dat, but I also knew that both SWMBO and her sister had driven it in that area on the day.
Requested a copy of the photo evidence, enclosing a copy of the certificate of insurance showing three named drivers on the policy. A few days later the photo turned up - nice clear forward face shot of SWMBO. She took the points and fine. Simple.
Why shouldn't they have to provide evidence to back up their accusations? If a police officer arrests you on suspicion of a burglary that was committed in the area last month and it goes to court, it's up to the police to provide evidence that you are guilty, as much as it's up to you to prove you aren't. With camera fines, it's a whole different ballgame. The word of the Safety Camera Partnership is fact unless you can prove your innocence.
If we are to log the use of our cars, what's next? Logging when we leave the house, where we are going, who with, and why in case we need to prove our innocence in some other way?
DP
|
I may be wrong,, but it seems to me that you accept that an offence had ben committed and you wanted the photo to clarify who committed it.
If the photo had been a bit blurry and although you knew it was one of those two drivers, can I ask what your response would have been?
I think if you look back at previous posts I say quite clearly I am not advocating keeping a log of your vehicle's users. I am saying it is responsible motoring to know who is driving your car.
I don't buy into the whole logging/paranoia stuff.
I think if the police had a photo of me coming out of a house with a bag of goodies it's fair enough for me to have to explain why I think that isn't me.
|
I couldn't agree more that it is responsible motoring to know who is driving your car at any given time. However, I don't agree that it is reasonable to be expected to remember exact dates, times and locations a month down the line.
Good question: what if the photo hadn't been clear. it would have been interesting. Presumably it would have been enough to deduce that the driver was female (both SMWBO and her sister have shoulder length blonde hair whereas mine is brown and a number 2 all over), so I could have proven beyond any doubt that it wasn't me driving. To tell you the truth, beyond that, I don't know what I would have said or what the outcome would have been.
If I'd known it had been me driving, I would have coughed up and admitted it. My licence is clean, and 3 points / £60 isn't exactly going to bring my world crashing down around my ears. But I knew from the location that it wasn't me (I'd never been to the town concerned and the only time SWMBO and her sister had, they'd met at a local supermarket and swapped vehicles)
If the police had a photo of you coming out of a house with a bag of goodies then of course you should have to explain yourself. But if the same photo showed someone wearing the same clothes as you, but with an unidentifiable face coming out of the house with a bag of goodies, the courts would throw it out in the absence of any other evidence. The way I see it, NIP's shift the burden of proof onto drivers and I don't personally think it's on.
|
"If I'd known it had been me driving, I would have coughed up and admitted it. My licence is clean, and 3 points / £60 isn't exactly going to bring my world crashing down around my ears."
This hits the nail on the head, the nub of the problem.
There seems to be a deeply entrenched reluctance to accept accept a speeding fine if it can at all be avoided - even if the driver knows they are guilty.
I've read 'victimless crime', 'stealth tax' endlessly. There is a view that as long as I don't kill or hurt nyone with my speeding then I shouldn't be punished and i dont buy that
Several posters seem to view speed cameras per se as an affront to their personal liberty.
|
Several posters seem to view speed cameras per se as an affront to their personal liberty
I have mixed views with regard to the cameras themselves. The short version is I think they are a good idea which has been abused.
In areas where there are above average numbers of accidents and/or fatalities that are directly attributed to excess speed, I have no issue with them.
In areas with large numbers of pedestrians, children playing, or other vulnerable people who face a real increase of death through speeding cars, I have no issue with them
On open roads where there is no evidence of speed-related accidents, or where roads have had speed limits reduced and cameras installed for no good reason I despise them.
The lies about speed's relevance to accidents and road deaths to justify placement of cameras in some areas also incense me. Even the ACPO's latest report into road accident causes directly contradicts the government's stance on speeding and the need for more cameras
Of course, there is a perfectly valid argument that we should not speed under any circumstances, but on the flip side of that, everything works better when people are policed by consent and have respect for the laws they live under. When we are lied to and when the law is perceived to be (rightly or wrongly) acting as a revenue raiser, respect for the law disappears. And I would personally much rather live in a society where people act in the spirit of the law because they believe in it than one where people follow the letter of the law because they have to. In the former, at least common sense and individual thought prevail, which in turn make the roads safer. The thought of driving a car while following laws by the number is terrifying. Of course we're not there yet, but if you oversimplify road safety into following the numbers on a dial, cut traffic police in half and enforce this one simple aspect of the law by camera, that is a risk you run in the long term
Cheers
DP
|
In the main I agree -
"On open roads where there is no evidence of speed-related accidents, or where roads have had speed limits reduced and cameras installed for no good reason I despise them."
I do understand why people object to this use of speed cameras, I accept that there may even be a fair case for not having the speed limit we have, but I do have one big reservation
I, for one, am not particularly comfortable driving at much more than 70, some of that is down to my car being more than 20 years old and rightly or wrongly, I worry that going that fast won't prolong its life. I suspect that even in a very new car I probably still wouldn't go much over 70 (if I did at all) mainly because I feel that the faster I go the more my ability to react to the unexpected is compromised (I don't go at 30 everywhere either) and mainly because I am not confident that other drivers either have the skill to react in a sudden dangerous situation
I think there is a limit at which the average driver (and there is a limit to human capability in reaction time) can drive safely - even on a straight, road
I don't think public roads are the best places to test those limits
Some people would say to me - "oh you're a rubbish, cautious driver who loses nothing by having a 70 limit"
Maybe - but there are correspondingly lots of people who think they are safe at over 70 and only find out afterwards they're not
I've had one high speed smash and naturally that colours the viewpoint - but if you said to me pick a maximum speed which is for all drivers, good, bad, young, old, legal, illegal - maybe 70 is fine enough and I'm happy enough to give up the opportunity to do 90 so that I don't have to run into the other bad ones doing 90 too
It's a compromise which I feel is actually in my interest too
|
This hits the nail on the head, the nub of the problem.
No it doesn't. Continue with this example. He knows that either his wife or her sister were driving the car, the photo can't be used to decide which one, no-one can remember. What happens next?
According to the stance you've taken throughout this thread, DP should get the points and fine. THAT'S the nub of the problem.
|
Wake up - HE knows it is one of them
What should they do?
One is his wife one his sister - I don't know what sort of dysfunctional family scenarios you've been thinking of so far
But generally you can expect a bit of honesty from them or ELSE - don't let them drive your car again
Do you understand MORALLY RIGHT thing to do
that is what I'm am asking speeders to do
|
BUT NEITHER OF THEM KNOW WHICH WAS DRIVING EITHER!!!!!!
What you are asking speeders to do is to say that they were definitely driving regardless of whether they know this to be true or not.
|
You want an excuse to get off - would you cook this up with your mrs?
shame on you
Both you and your wife know that either you or her broke the law in your vehicle - you ADMIT that
You are not BOTH denying the charge
I think in that situation - given that you're being allowed a choice as to who should swallow the points and you won't
QWell the registered keeper should be penalised - if it wasn't you - then don't let your wife drive your car again - she's a lier and you've learnt a cheap lesson at £60
Think divorce
|
Again ridiculous. It is the courts jon to prove who was driving. Are you listening to yourself?
You think justice is the court saying "well we're going to give point and a fine to one of you, decide between you who should have to be punished"?
And once again - because you really don't seem to be getting this - neither of you can remember who was driving at the time. Seems a little harsh under the circumstances to therefore call your wife a liar and try to divorce her.
|
OH NO - would I be asking you to perjure yourself!!!!
Heaven for fend - better to say it was neither of you driving - the car sped by itself
IT's £60 - you know it was one of you
We all know it was one of you
God this is like school! Would you be happier with £30 and 1.5 pts each?
You'd say NO it wasn't me driving
Your wife would say NO it wasn't me driving
Can't you see the pettiness of your adherence to what you see as 'the letter of the law'?
AND I bet you expect a copper to show discretion - ha ha ha
|
Can you see the pettiness of your insistence that for every crime someone must be punished, regardless of whether they committed it or not?
I'm amused but slightly bewildered at your continued attempts to make this personal, despite the fact that I've explained that my own situation doesn't even allow for this issue to come up - since I am the only driver of my car. Let me lay your mind at rest by telling you how I would feel about it if I did receive a court summons for an offence of speeding.
If I knew it was me, I would obviously take the punishment.
If, on the balance of probabilities I felt it was probably me, I would take the punishment.
If I had absolutely no idea whether it was me or someone else, and I had no particular reason to believe it was me over that other person, I would argue it.
Again I'll ask you the question, and hope you try to answer it this time rather than going off on another vague and irrelevant rant about responsibilities:
Can you accept that a pair of people who, one day three months ago, shared the driving of a car on a long journey, might not know which of them was driving on one particular stretch of road?
Everything else is window-dressing, apart from your apparent belief that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
|
"Can you accept that a pair of people who, one day three months ago, shared the driving of a car on a long journey, might not know which of them was driving on one particular stretch of road?"
I have never disputed this, and as far as I'm concerned, the memory of the accused is an issue for the accused to deal with.
My argument is that it is no concern of the taxpayer whether you can or cannot remember who was driving.
The fact is, if you accept it was your vehicle, then you as registered owner have a responsibilty to know who was driving.
That is the point I have made from the outset - if you know who was driving then they are guilty of speeding and not you memory has nothing to do with it.
I do not believe you are guilty until proven innocent.
I don't believe the state should waste its time fannying about after people who try and dodge £60 fines.
|
That is the point I have made from the outset - if you know who was driving then they are guilty of speeding and not you memory has nothing to do with it.
Well since the usual method of knowing who was driving would be to remember, I think memory has everything to do with it.
S to what should be done about it, a part solution would be to send the NIP by recorded delivery, since then at least they can prove that it was received, and two weeks after the event might be a little easier to remember than three months.
And you can mock the fact, but you are asking people to lie to the court and say they remember driving when they in fact do not. Heaven forbid the judgement should be based on fact.
>>"Can you accept that a pair of people who, one day three months ago, shared the driving of a car on a long journey, might not know which of them was driving on >>one particular stretch of road?"
>>I have never disputed this, and as far as I'm concerned, the memory of the accused is an issue for the accused to deal with.
So you can accept that no-one in fact knows who was driving the car, and therefore no-one knows who has and has not committed a crime, but you still believe that someone should be randomly punished for it? Then there's no helping you.
|
My statement is badly phrased - I meant:
Since you (the registered keeper) know (can name them) who was driving then your (the registered keeper) memory is not in question.
"So you can accept that no-one in fact knows who was driving the car, and therefore no-one knows who has and has not committed a crime, but you still believe that someone should be randomly punished for it? Then there's no helping you."
My position on breaking the speed limit:
When you passed your test - you knew the speed limits - you accepted them as forming part of your contract with the state - we grant ourselves the freedom to drive and we agree to abide by the rules
No ifs, buts , whatevers
I don't accept the 'thing' people have for speed - just because you can go faster doesn't mean you have to
Having received a NIP, I don't accept that "claiming you do not know" (truthfully or for the purposes of fraudulent evasion) who was driving invalidates the offence that has been committed - the offence has still been committed - in your vehicle
More fool me but if I didn't know who was driving (and the car hadn't been stolen) and I accepted that it was my car in that place at that time - then I would pay up
You are the registered keeper - it was committed in your vehicle - If your defence is that it wasn't you driving and you don't know who was then I suspect that after £60 and 3 points you will be a bit more bothered about remembering who was driving your car in future
That's not a hard punishment for something which a responsible driver, fleet owner, any registered owner should know anyway
And you know what, the reason the law will not change on this is, that most 'right thinking people' - (that has a legally defined meaning, I ain't making it up) feel the same way.
So people are either going to have to come up with some more 'selfless' arguments for changing the limits - or start putting up
|
You've even gone to the trouble of quoting this bit:
"So you can accept that no-one in fact knows who was driving the car, and therefore no-one knows who has and has not committed a crime, but you still believe that someone should be randomly punished for it? Then there's no helping you."
But have then gone off on a completely different and irrelevant argument about the rights and wrongs of speeding.
I think I'll give up on you. Throughout this conversation I have tried to answer the points that you have made and rebut them, while you have ignored everything anyone else has said, stuck your fingers in your ears and repeated your "there's been an offence, someone must pay, whether they did it or not" mantra.
|
"Everything else is window-dressing"
Again, if you read the full sequence of posts and in particular the original post, you will note that memory is only part of it
It may be the only part you want to address - bit it is only part of it
I ask again - What's your solution?
|
Now, you were saying... I believe I should be able to go out speeding, get photographed doing it, but escape punishment because I can claim someone else was driving and they can't prove otherwise and that generally that should be fine with everyone else because I'm a really dood driver and able to speed safely unlike all you plebs that the laws actually apply to........?
No one here was saying that. YOU were saying ... I believe that they should be able to prosecute someone who they do not know was driving, despite there being no proof in any way that they were. I also believe that said person should have a photographic memory of their whereabouts and speed at all times going back over several months. Anyone who does not have this memory should be considered a liar.
If someone is accused of murder, but there's no proof either way, should they be found guilty and jailed for life?
|
"I think it's justified to charge the Registered Keeper, because it is their vehicle, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is fair to assume they were driving it.
I don't think it is fair to assume that in the absence of evidence of the registered keeper driving then it must have been someone else."
I'm not saying you should have a photographic memory but if you're that certain it WASN'T you driving
It does rather beg the question - how come you can't say who was driving?
In your murder example you say "no proof either way" but doesn't the camera (ask them for the photo) alrady put your car at the scene - so not really the same
|
I don't think it is fair to assume that in the absence of evidence of the registered keeper driving then it must have been someone else."
But no-one is assuming that someone else is driving, they're just not assuming anything. That's the point of the burden of proof. There shouldn't ever BE any assumptions.
I'm not saying you should have a photographic memory but if you're that certain it WASN'T you driving It does rather beg the question - how come you can't say who was driving?
Again, no-one is saying that they're CERTAIN they weren't driving. They're saying they DON'T KNOW.
In your murder example you say "no proof either way" but doesn't the camera (ask them for the photo) alrady put your car at the scene - so not really the same
Why isn't it the same? It's utterly circumstantial evidence, which would be thrown out of court for the murder case if given as the only available proof. Again, the photo proves that the car is present, it doesn't prove who was driving the car. If no-one knows who was driving the car, why should a random, possibly innocent, person take the blame? That's not the way justice works - or at least shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
