ChatterBank1 min ago
speed camera's
Ok here's the scenario......... just say : P you were going over the speed limit (only just) and then a letter arrives in the post with an intended prosection letter from the local constabulary, you are 'not sure' if it was you driving 'said' vehicle,so you request photographic evidence, which then arrives and it is clearly you driving, ok thats fine, own up, pay up accept the consequences..........BUT these 'Burka wearing people' would not have this problem i am assuming? now i am thinking that is is somehow unfair? (i know, i know its 'your' own fault for speeding etc etc but havent we ALL even a couple of MPH's????) Clearly they would be exempt from recognition on photographic evidence (assuming that they too go over the limit on occasion) i think that they should be made to take this headwear off whilst driving, and another reason for this is that their hearing must be hampered as must their TOTAL all-round vision, surely a danger whilst driving?
I am not being bitter, i was caught fair and square, and i have no problem with that, its just that............. one rule for everybody??
I am not being bitter, i was caught fair and square, and i have no problem with that, its just that............. one rule for everybody??
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by curlyperm. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The purpose of these photographs is not to identify the driver but to identify the vehicle. They often do show the driver but that is not what they are for.
You would be amazed at the number of motorists who claim that they cannot remember who was driving from looking at the photograph - the fact that this is their car and the NIP is sent out within a couple of days of the offence seems to do nothing to jog their memory.
So it doesnt matter if you are wearing a burka or a scarf around your face or a motorcyclist with a full face helmet - if its your vehicle you ought to able to say who was driving
You would be amazed at the number of motorists who claim that they cannot remember who was driving from looking at the photograph - the fact that this is their car and the NIP is sent out within a couple of days of the offence seems to do nothing to jog their memory.
So it doesnt matter if you are wearing a burka or a scarf around your face or a motorcyclist with a full face helmet - if its your vehicle you ought to able to say who was driving
seatrout is quite correct. Although there are plans to introduce cameras which can provide an image of the driver, these are not currently in use. Even if and when they do become widespread it is not intended that they will be routinely used to identify drivers.
The law as it stands requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence. If he will not or cannot he is summonsed to appear before magistrates under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. Unless he can provide a reasonable defence to show why he cannot provide the details requested he will be convicted. The offence carries a fine and three penalty points. Hence the scenario you paint concerning drivers wearing veils or masks or otherwise concealing their identity is not valid.
Although there have been some successes, the offence is difficult to defend. It is not usually sufficient to cite lack of memory (and this is one of the reasons why Notices of Intended Prosecution have to be despatched so as to arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence). Registered keepers are expected to be able to say who was driving the vehicle for which they have responsibility.
If and when the new cameras become commonplace it is not intended that this responsibility will cease. The Section 172 requirements will remain in place but prosecuting authorities will have additional evidence to present to court when the identity of the driver is disputed. In these cases the scenario you present will not be assisted by the new cameras but the onus will remain on the registered keeper to provide the driver�s details, so the law remains the same for all.
The law as it stands requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence. If he will not or cannot he is summonsed to appear before magistrates under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. Unless he can provide a reasonable defence to show why he cannot provide the details requested he will be convicted. The offence carries a fine and three penalty points. Hence the scenario you paint concerning drivers wearing veils or masks or otherwise concealing their identity is not valid.
Although there have been some successes, the offence is difficult to defend. It is not usually sufficient to cite lack of memory (and this is one of the reasons why Notices of Intended Prosecution have to be despatched so as to arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence). Registered keepers are expected to be able to say who was driving the vehicle for which they have responsibility.
If and when the new cameras become commonplace it is not intended that this responsibility will cease. The Section 172 requirements will remain in place but prosecuting authorities will have additional evidence to present to court when the identity of the driver is disputed. In these cases the scenario you present will not be assisted by the new cameras but the onus will remain on the registered keeper to provide the driver�s details, so the law remains the same for all.
curlyperm, I totally agree. There have been cases that I've read about where a fine has been issued and the drivers and owners of the car couldn't remember if it was them, or indeed their other halves driving. The photo was produced and could not show clearly which one was driving therefore they HAD to drop the charges. It's exactly the same principle as when police stop a stolen car and the 'joyriders' run away from the vehicle before being caught. When asked who was driving, it's a known fact that if they all deny being the driver and no-one admits to it, then there's nothing the police can do with regards to charging them with the 'driving a stolen car' charge. I do believe that the whole face must be visable when driving as you say, not only for the drivers own visibility but also for identification purposes.
The original issue is being clouded here.
The scenario of the stolen car painted by katangel is not analogous to that of being detected by a safety camera. The occupants of the stolen car are NOT obliged to provide evidence as to who was driving (although their �silence� can be used by the prosecution in court to suggest to the magistrates or a jury that they knew but would not tell). This silence, alone, however, will not support a conviction. In these cases unless there is other supporting evidence, the CPS (not the police) will not authorise a prosecution to proceed.
The registered owner of a vehicle IS obliged to provide details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence. If he does not, and cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he has failed to do so, then he will be convicted. In these circumstances the CPS almost always authorise the prosecution to proceed because it is normally for a court to decide whether the Keeper�s defence is sufficient.
Safety cameras may well be used as supporting evidence to prove who was driving a stolen car. They will not normally be used to identify speeding drivers because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no need.
The scenario of the stolen car painted by katangel is not analogous to that of being detected by a safety camera. The occupants of the stolen car are NOT obliged to provide evidence as to who was driving (although their �silence� can be used by the prosecution in court to suggest to the magistrates or a jury that they knew but would not tell). This silence, alone, however, will not support a conviction. In these cases unless there is other supporting evidence, the CPS (not the police) will not authorise a prosecution to proceed.
The registered owner of a vehicle IS obliged to provide details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence. If he does not, and cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he has failed to do so, then he will be convicted. In these circumstances the CPS almost always authorise the prosecution to proceed because it is normally for a court to decide whether the Keeper�s defence is sufficient.
Safety cameras may well be used as supporting evidence to prove who was driving a stolen car. They will not normally be used to identify speeding drivers because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no need.
1 to 8 of 8
