Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you have mistaken a penalty with "innocent until proven guilty" which tbh undermines a reasonable arguement.
In my opinion, you appear to standing on the "speeding is not a serious offence, but the consequences of a ban are" line (is that your opinion?).
No, my objection is that a non-driving offence (failing to identify the driver of a car) can be punished by removing half the allowance on your licence. Mistakes happen, often its weeks before NIPs arrive, there's no obligation to keep records and yet the onus on identification lies with the keeper.
For example:
If you were the company secretary with a large fleet, and 12 of your staff, all insured for company cars, take 3 cars to a trade show, and all get caught on camera doing 60 through the roadworks on the way home on the M1, there are 12 possible guilty drivers, but no way of proving who were the three that committed the crime.
That's 18 points please.
Thankyou.
OK, now I understand.
It is the MAXIMUM penalty that you object to? ie the fact that the maximum is available to the Courts?
Don't you think that it makes sense for the Courts to have that sanction available to them? or should it be that it would never be appropriate?
My complaint is quite simply it is a lazy law. I have no problem with prosecuting speeding motorists. If you commit the crime then we should be prepared to do the time.IThere is alot of twaddle talked by people with axes to grind, agendas to hide and big mouths but no trousers.
forum member said:And co-incidentally on the same day two people caught (matching fingerprints and dna in car) but let free as...
no evidence of them being my house, so not burglary
no evidence of them stealing my car, just being in it
no evidence of them being "carried by a stolen car" as although they had been in it there was no evidence of them being in the car when it was moving... (hmmm, crash, blood, dna)
no evidence of aggravated something....
HERE HERE couldn't agree moreMy complaint is quite simply it is a lazy law. I have no problem with prosecuting speeding motorists. If you commit the crime then we should be prepared to do the time.
BUT let's not kid ourselves and think we are acting for the greater good and saving the lives of anyone. It is simply a lazy law where the prosecution are relying on the accused to admit the offence just because they do not have enough evidence.
Two wrongs never make a right, but how many times have real criminals walked because of so called lack of evidence?
For example:
If you were the company secretary with a large fleet, and 12 of your staff, all insured for company cars, take 3 cars to a trade show, and all get caught on camera doing 60 through the roadworks on the way home on the M1, there are 12 possible guilty drivers, but no way of proving who were the three that committed the crime.
That's 18 points please.
If you were the company secretary with a large fleet...That's 18 points please.
It may be seen as an invidious penalty, but it wouldn't have been introduced if the number of people ducking the three points was insignificant.
I'm not sure what it is you're petitioning about (just in from the pub). Are you thinking that a company, or company secretary, would attract penalty points for a failure to inform?
Edit: Are you referring to the other thread, that's running here just now, whereby it is proposed that someone "forgetting" who was driving when a speeding affence occured would nett 6 penalty points? Because that's just a proposal, for now, isn't it - it isn't law?
The failure to identify bit is law now and has been for a while but the 6 point penalty bit was just on the Sky News site as "the Government's planning to increase the penalty for failure to identify a speeding driver".
Where are you seeing that a 6 point penalty is the current punishment for a failure to identify?
"First up, don’t forget that starting this Monday, the 24th September, anyone caught “failing to identify the driver,” when caught by a speed camera or suchlike, will automatically earn themselves double points.
Thanks to the provisions set out in the Road Safety Act 2006, the government has amended the law which now means that drivers who don’t admit to their indiscretion will receive six penalty points.
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just spiteful."
"Vehicle owners should be aware that they have no obligation to 'name the driver' if they do not know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, and cannot discover the identity of the driver using reasonable diligence. This is a statutory defence - sometimes known as the Hamilton defence - and is enshrined in statute 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just spiteful."
IThe quote from the SafeSpeed guy is also wrong -there is no section 172 of the RTOA - so when he spouts about "statutory defence" I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
Have there been any records showing average speeds on a road before and after cameras?
I know there are records for accidents on a road before and after cameras but what about speed.
If the speeds are not reducing, then the reduction in accidents could be caused by other things
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.