New speed limits

[Lootman]

I thought that the fixed speed cameras in France did not have warning signs - and some of those grey 'bins' and slim black poles are difficult to spot at times.

Warning you about the cameras, or showing them on maps, would indicate that France doesn't want you to speed.

Hiding them indicates that they actually want you to speed, so they can collect the revenues.

Speed cameras are relatively rare in the US. The reason, I was told, is that the camera has to also identify you as being the driver. If the authorities cannot prove it was you, then you get off. The fact that it was your vehicle is moot. Whereas here the burden seems to be on the driver to prove he wasn't driving. So much for the presumption of innocence.

[bungeejumper]

Speed cameras are relatively rare in the US. The reason, I was told, is that the camera has to also identify you as being the driver. If the authorities cannot prove it was you, then you get off. The fact that it was your vehicle is moot.

So all you need is a pair of reflective Ray-Bans, and the law can't touch you? (I imagine a Burt Reynolds moustache would also help.)

Ditto for a face mask, I presume? By reducing your risk to others in one way, you get a licence to kill in a different way?

Brethren, what the Law giveth, the Law also taketh away. Okay, I'll get me coat.

BJ

[swill453]

Whereas here the burden seems to be on the driver to prove he wasn't driving. So much for the presumption of innocence.

No, the responsibility is for the registered keeper of the vehicle to know who was driving at any time, and to supply this information on demand.

Scott.

[Lootman]

Whereas here the burden seems to be on the driver to prove he wasn't driving. So much for the presumption of innocence.

No, the responsibility is for the registered keeper of the vehicle to know who was driving at any time, and to supply this information on demand.

Yes I know, that was exactly the distinction I was making!

In the US the government has to prove it was the owner who was driving. In the UK the owner has to prove he wasn't driving.

They have a presumption of innocence and we have a presumption of guilt. It was for much the same reason that the UK police caution was changed a number of years ago to advise you that being silent can count against you. Contrast that with the Miranda warning in the US, where you cannot be made to testify or incriminate yourself or others, and your right to silence is sacrosanct.

Your rights were eroded and you barely even noticed.

[swill453]

Whereas here the burden seems to be on the driver to prove he wasn't driving. So much for the presumption of innocence.

No, the responsibility is for the registered keeper of the vehicle to know who was driving at any time, and to supply this information on demand.

Yes I know, that was exactly the distinction I was making!

In the US the government has to prove it was the owner who was driving. In the UK the owner has to prove he wasn't driving.

They have a presumption of innocence and we have a presumption of guilt.

No, there's no presumption of guilt. The registered keeper has a responsibility to provide the information on who was driving, if they don't then there's a penalty. But if they don't accept the penalty they can elect for trial, where the usual presumption of innocence applies.

This is separate from the speeding offence. Once it's established who was driving (see above) then a fixed penalty is offered. If this isn't accepted, then a trial can happen, again with the usual presumption of innocence at the start.

This isn't a new way of doing things, it's been around for ages.

Scott.

[Lootman]

No, the responsibility is for the registered keeper of the vehicle to know who was driving at any time, and to supply this information on demand.

Yes I know, that was exactly the distinction I was making!

In the US the government has to prove it was the owner who was driving. In the UK the owner has to prove he wasn't driving.

They have a presumption of innocence and we have a presumption of guilt.

No, there's no presumption of guilt. The registered keeper has a responsibility to provide the information on who was driving, if they don't then there's a penalty. But if they don't accept the penalty they can elect for trial, where the usual presumption of innocence applies.

This is separate from the speeding offence. Once it's established who was driving (see above) then a fixed penalty is offered. If this isn't accepted, then a trial can happen, again with the usual presumption of innocence at the start.

This isn't a new way of doing things, it's been around for ages.

It may not be new but I am contrasting it with how things work in the US, where the owner cannot be compelled to incriminate himself or another person. The owner can say nothing and the authorities have to prove it was him or her driving, or drop the case. There are red light cameras in the US, and they are set up to photograph both the plate and the driver's face.

And anyway, the owner may not know who was driving. Any business with a fleet of cars may not know exactly who is driving what, where and when. And there was a period of time in our household when we had 3 cars and 4 licensed drivers. The keys went into a pot in the hallway and I, my wife or kids would take out whichever vehicle made the most sense. In such cases the owner may genuinely not know who was driving, especially if the alleged incident was weeks ago.

Note this problem only arises with camera tickets. If an actual cop stops you, as it should be, then this problem doesn't arise, and the state has its proof. But my main point was to show how individual rights are eroded in the UK to the point where you are compelled to cooperate.

[AF62]

I thought that the fixed speed cameras in France did not have warning signs - and some of those grey 'bins' and slim black poles are difficult to spot at times.

Warning you about the cameras, or showing them on maps, would indicate that France doesn't want you to speed.

Hiding them indicates that they actually want you to speed, so they can collect the revenues.

Requiring people to have undertaken training, passed a test, and been issued a licence to drive indicates that they would like you to comply with the posted speed limits.

Hiding speed cameras is simply an effective measure to catch those who are breaking the law by speeding, either because they are careless or couldn’t care less.

The careless may rectify their behaviour by slowing down when they see a speed camera, but a ‘wack’ from a fine is likely to have a far more long lasting reminder to pay attention. Those who couldn’t care less will be intentionally slowing down only for visible cameras, so hidden cameras are the only effective method to deal with them.

[swill453]

It may not be new but I am contrasting it with how things work in the US, where the owner cannot be compelled to incriminate himself or another person. The owner can say nothing and the authorities have to prove it was him or her driving, or drop the case. There are red light cameras in the US, and they are set up to photograph both the plate and the driver's face.

And anyway, the owner may not know who was driving. Any business with a fleet of cars may not know exactly who is driving what, where and when. And there was a period of time in our household when we had 3 cars and 4 licensed drivers. The keys went into a pot in the hallway and I, my wife or kids would take out whichever vehicle made the most sense. In such cases the owner may genuinely not know who was driving, especially if the alleged incident was weeks ago.

Note this problem only arises with camera tickets. If an actual cop stops you, as it should be, then this problem doesn't arise, and the state has its proof. But my main point was to show how individual rights are eroded in the UK to the point where you are compelled to cooperate.

I'm not sure many in the UK will see it as an erosion of rights. The end point of the dispute can always be in a court of law, where the defendant can plead their case.

I agree we appear to have more responsibilities in this country, but some might see that as a benefit.

The option is always there to go and live in a jurisdiction you prefer (if you have the resources to do so, of course).

Scott.

[Lootman]

It may not be new but I am contrasting it with how things work in the US, where the owner cannot be compelled to incriminate himself or another person. The owner can say nothing and the authorities have to prove it was him or her driving, or drop the case. There are red light cameras in the US, and they are set up to photograph both the plate and the driver's face.

And anyway, the owner may not know who was driving. Any business with a fleet of cars may not know exactly who is driving what, where and when. And there was a period of time in our household when we had 3 cars and 4 licensed drivers. The keys went into a pot in the hallway and I, my wife or kids would take out whichever vehicle made the most sense. In such cases the owner may genuinely not know who was driving, especially if the alleged incident was weeks ago.

Note this problem only arises with camera tickets. If an actual cop stops you, as it should be, then this problem doesn't arise, and the state has its proof. But my main point was to show how individual rights are eroded in the UK to the point where you are compelled to cooperate.

I'm not sure many in the UK will see it as an erosion of rights. The end point of the dispute can always be in a court of law, where the defendant can plead their case.

I agree we appear to have more responsibilities in this country, but some might see that as a benefit.

Whether it is a reasonable responsibility for me to be obligated to or intimidated into helping the state prosecute individuals is the issue, ultimately. People may differ on that but personally I do not believe I should ever be put in that position. My original point was to highlight the difference between how Britain, France and the US handle this, depending on whether the desire is to deter speeding, profit from speeding or protect civil rights.

[didds]

WRT that registered keeper thing - what happens when the registered keeper genuinely cannot identify who was driving the vehicle ?

And does a registered keeper have to hold a driving licence? Or could it be "anybody" - and if so if are fines the same whether there is a licence to penalise with points or not?

Merely intrigued

didds

[Lootman]

WRT that registered keeper thing - what happens when the registered keeper genuinely cannot identify who was driving the vehicle ?

And does a registered keeper have to hold a driving licence? Or could it be "anybody" - and if so if are fines the same whether there is a licence to penalise with points or not?

I gave a couple of examples earlier of cases where the vehicle's owner/keeper might genuinely not know who was driving. The authorities should then conclude that there is reasonable doubt and drop the citation. The concern of course is that they may instead insist on trying to pursue the prosecution even though they have no affirmative proof that the owner was driving. That is the mess we have got ourselves into in the UK.

An owner does not have to have a license. A blind person could be the owner, and then hire a driver to get around.

[didds]

The concern of course is that they may instead insist on trying to pursue the prosecution even though they have no affirmative proof that the owner was driving.

cheers lootman.

I cant see how that scenario could possibly progress/be successful short of a photograph being very clear and deifnitive 9in which case the registered keeper could ID etc easily anyway - unless its a cloned plate maybe?)

didds

[Lootman]

The concern of course is that they may instead insist on trying to pursue the prosecution even though they have no affirmative proof that the owner was driving.

I cant see how that scenario could possibly progress/be successful short of a photograph being very clear and definitive (in which case the registered keeper could ID etc easily anyway - unless its a cloned plate maybe?)

Yes, as I mentioned earlier the correct way to do this is for the camera to be set up to record the face of the driver. In fact of the two cases where I have received a traffic ticket (neither for speeding, neither by camera) one of those times was in a vehicle owned by someone else (which was handy as it meant no insurance was affected).

Another thing I have wondered about is whether, as the keeper/owner, I could claim the driver was a foreigner living overseas. I have let a few foreign nationals drive my car. I can't see the UK authorities trying to chase down a fine from someone in Bolivia

[bungeejumper]

I gave a couple of examples earlier of cases where the vehicle's owner/keeper might genuinely not know who was driving. The authorities should then conclude that there is reasonable doubt and drop the citation.

It's those two words "might" and "genuinely" that worry me. If American law says that you can evade all further investigation by invoking either of those words, then the whole inevitability of personal responsibility is fatally undermined.

I'd prefer to think that most US citizens would check their consciences, fess up, and not go for the loophole. And that those who do "accidentally" forget to establish who was at the wheel on the fateful day, should bear in mind their potential liabilities in terms of perverting justice and wasting police time.

But to conclude that, in all cases where they do make such protestations, "the authorities should then conclude that there is reasonable doubt and drop the citation" is surely asking the law to roll over and play dead? I am glad, and a little bit proud, that most European legislation, including ours, is not so easily thwarted.

BJ

[Lootman]

I gave a couple of examples earlier of cases where the vehicle's owner/keeper might genuinely not know who was driving. The authorities should then conclude that there is reasonable doubt and drop the citation.

It's those two words "might" and "genuinely" that worry me. If American law says that you can evade all further investigation by invoking either of those words, then the whole inevitability of personal responsibility is fatally undermined.

I'd prefer to think that most US citizens would check their consciences, fess up, and not go for the loophole. And that those who do "accidentally" forget to establish who was at the wheel on the fateful day, should bear in mind their potential liabilities in terms of perverting justice and wasting police time.

But to conclude that, in all cases where they do make such protestations, "the authorities should then conclude that there is reasonable doubt and drop the citation" is surely asking the law to roll over and play dead? I am glad, and a little bit proud, that most European legislation, including ours, is not so easily thwarted.

It is not about "evading" anything. It is about the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And about your right to silence. It is not your job to help the prosecution to win a conviction. Either they can prove it was you or they cannot. If they cannot then you walk.

The US manages fine with this because they record an image of the driver. That is no harder then recording an image of the number plate. The UK instead ignores that crucial requirement and instead just announces that it is going to assume you were the driver unless you rat out some friend, family member or neighbour.

But I would agree with you that there is a cultural difference here. The UK (and the rest of Europe if you are right about that) is willing to steamroller your civil rights in order to boost the conviction rate and collect more money. The US values more the right to silence and the presumption of innocence.

Now maybe the trampling of your civil rights does not matter if we have a benign government and fair courts. But then what if we don't? Where is the bill of rights that protects you against an invasive and corrupt government? The US has that and the Supreme Court to back it up. Here?

Is it really so bad to require the authorities to prove their case, rather than just railroad vehicle owners into capitulation?

[chas49]

In fact of the two cases where I have received a traffic ticket (neither for speeding, neither by camera) one of those times was in a vehicle owned by someone else (which was handy as it meant no insurance was affected).

You are of course required to disclose convictions/penalties to your own insurers if they ask you at renewal - just driving someone else's vehicle doesn't mean your insurance isn't affected.

Another thing I have wondered about is whether, as the keeper/owner, I could claim the driver was a foreigner living overseas. I have let a few foreign nationals drive my car. I can't see the UK authorities trying to chase down a fine from someone in Bolivia

You could 'claim' that if it was true. Or it would be perjury (or similar)

[Lootman]

In fact of the two cases where I have received a traffic ticket (neither for speeding, neither by camera) one of those times was in a vehicle owned by someone else (which was handy as it meant no insurance was affected).

You are of course required to disclose convictions/penalties to your own insurers if they ask you at renewal - just driving someone else's vehicle doesn't mean your insurance isn't affected.

In this case it was my wife's car. Her insurance was therefore not affected, and I didn't have any insurance as I was driving on hers.

Another thing I have wondered about is whether, as the keeper/owner, I could claim the driver was a foreigner living overseas. I have let a few foreign nationals drive my car. I can't see the UK authorities trying to chase down a fine from someone in Bolivia

You could 'claim' that if it was true. Or it would be perjury (or similar)

My hypothetical example was geared more towards wondering how the authorities react when they are informed that the person driving was someone beyond their jurisdiction. I cannot imagine they consider it worth pursuing.

[chas49]

In this case it was my wife's car. Her insurance was therefore not affected, and I didn't have any insurance as I was driving on hers.

OK - but you did have insurance on your wife's policy - and your convictions/penalties would need to be disclosed (if required) in exactly the same way.

My hypothetical example was geared more towards wondering how the authorities react when they are informed that the person driving was someone beyond their jurisdiction. I cannot imagine they consider it worth pursuing.

Quite probably.... unless they thought it wasn't true (but that's a further hypothetical...)

[Lootman]

In this case it was my wife's car. Her insurance was therefore not affected, and I didn't have any insurance as I was driving on hers.

OK - but you did have insurance on your wife's policy - and your convictions/penalties would need to be disclosed (if required) in exactly the same way.

As I recall her insurance allowed any driver on her vehicle, and I was not a named driver, so there was no obligation to disclose.

My hypothetical example was geared more towards wondering how the authorities react when they are informed that the person driving was someone beyond their jurisdiction. I cannot imagine they consider it worth pursuing.

Quite probably.... unless they thought it wasn't true (but that's a further hypothetical...)

They might think I am lying, but they would still have do to some investigation of the individual I named anyway, or else in court they would be compelled to admit that they made no effort to locate the real driver, which would look to a jury like either prejudice or laziness.

If you name the driver and they cannot locate him, then that should be the end of the matter. Of course if you have done this a few times then that might be another matter

[chas49]

In this case it was my wife's car. Her insurance was therefore not affected, and I didn't have any insurance as I was driving on hers.

OK - but you did have insurance on your wife's policy - and your convictions/penalties would need to be disclosed (if required) in exactly the same way.

As I recall her insurance allowed any driver on her vehicle, and I was not a named driver, so there was no obligation to disclose.

That would work, yes. (Can you actually get a policy now which allows any (not named) drivers? I suspect it would cost a lot. Nevertheless, I see that your situation wasn't quite the normal one for today.)

My hypothetical example was geared more towards wondering how the authorities react when they are informed that the person driving was someone beyond their jurisdiction. I cannot imagine they consider it worth pursuing.

Quite probably.... unless they thought it wasn't true (but that's a further hypothetical...)

They might think I am lying, but they would still have do to some investigation of the individual I named anyway, or else in court they would be compelled to admit that they made no effort to locate the real driver, which would look to a jury like either prejudice or laziness.

If you name the driver and they cannot locate him, then that should be the end of the matter. Of course if you have done this a few times then that might be another matter

Exactly. I suppose they might ask the registered keeper to provide something more than saying "it was Juan and he's gone to Bolivia" though. (I've looked for examples of exactly what detail is required in replying to a s172 notice without success (at least within the time I wanted to spend )