alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ah.........but THAT'S because the UK enforces every tiny bit of EC legislation to the hilt, whether it's good for the UK or not.

The OTHER European countries take a "wider view", ie: they ignore stuff that doesn't benefit their citizens or their governments

Take VAT. The French have a scheme whereby VAT is only charged at 5.5% on renovations done by French-registered builders etc. This allows people to renovate more cheaply, thus do more work, so more work for builders and more property sold and not derelict, and more communities not dead or dying.

Brussels have told them to stop doing it for the last 4 years, and adopt one rate for VAT.

The French response? "Yes, sorry, we'll stop next time the legislation needs renewing". Then they just go ahead and renew.

Alcazar

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Do you always side with the lawbreakers?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Sorry? Have I missed something here?

I reckon if you do a post search, you'll find me FIRMLY on the side of sensible laws that punish those who do harm to others. Unfortunately, in Bliiar's Uk these DO NOT seem to be the ones enforced properly.

Otherwise, WTF use are they?

Alcazar

Fishface

S172 is an important tool for the Police.

The ruling will quite rightly be in favour of the UK. The obligation for S172 makes the registered keeper say who was driving at X time on Y day. Driving isn't an offence itself. Similar rulings have happened in the past.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Correction

andy97

iTrader: (1)

And if the RK doesnt know who's driving, they punish him for failing to furnish.

Driving offences are a criminal offence and should have the same rights as burglars, murderers, terrorists, etc

Dear burglar, we alleged that you committed an offence, tell us it was you or we will fine you

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Again please do not let facts get in the way of a good story. The Gatso was introduced in June of 1992 which may not feel like it, but was FIVE YEARS before Labour came to power.

So the law was put in place by the, err, ummm, ahh, oh yes, the CONSERVATIVES.

More charging at windmills

CrisPDuk

Or it's an off duty copper driving home from a night on the p!ss
Then they're usually unable to trace the offender even when they're given a full and detailed description of both car and driver



If I'd have known then what I know now I'd have given chase and run the **** off the road

OllyK

So what? NL have had 10 years to get rid and actually do something effective about road safety, they haven't though have they as it's a nice gravy train, especially combined with dropping previously NSL roads down to 40 mph.

Devildog

Olly,

I doubt anyone is denying the fact that speed cameras are a huge revenue generator first and a safety device second.

But, come on. Its not like they are hard to spot nowadays - if you are speeding you should be particularly attentive to your surroundings anyway.

2 feds on a bridge with laser a mile away, now that's a different issue, but gatso's...

If you can't see a large square box on an 8 foot pole at the side of the road, (or bright yellow specs cameras on a gantry) how the hell do you expect to see a child, ball, animal or even small obstruction on the carriageway?

The problem isn't the cameras - the problem is that people are just not observant enough to drive safely.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Some cameras are still hidden, and the luminous paint they are meant to have has mysteriously warn away There are quite a few around here that you have no chance of seeing, only local knowledge of one of those GPS things will help you out.

OllyK

That wasn't really the point I was making. My point was that blaming the pervious government for cameras etc when the current government has had 10 years to change it is not much of an argument.

Also the guidelines for cameras have changed, they no longer need to be highly visible and they can site a mobile van anywhere now regardless of whether it's a black spot or not. A recent visit to Herefordshire saw this in action already, camera grey and hidden behind foliage and 1/2 mile down the road a camera van. I wasn't speeding but it instills a level of paranoia resulting in obsessing about what the speedo is reading rather than worrying about what's happening on the road.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

And this was around with the introduction of GATSOs?

You were always compelled to say who the driver was and I believe that law came about in 1988, even earlier than the GATSO and certainly predating NL.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

I think the issue here is the key fact that you basically have to incriminate yourself or face the prospect of getting shafted for a more severe penalty if you can not name who was driving.

That is wrong whichever way you try and paint it.. and it is NOT hypocrisy to be against that!

For example, I'm at home been out the **** and essentially unconscious asleep. Some friends of the family are staying over the weekend, they have a couple of teenage sons. While I'm basically sound asleep one of these little cherubs TWOC's my car by using the key that was in the house, returns it later that night then puts the keys back before I wake up. During those interim hours they've been tear arsing around the place and got caught on a camera but the photo doesn't clearly show who was driving.

Two weeks later.. I get a NIP, I have no recollection of the car ever going missing and I have no recollection of driving it. So now I either cough up for doing nothing wrong or face further prosecution for not providing the names of who were driving at the time.. which obviously I can't. So there's a miscarriage of justice right there in one simple scenario! Great legislation that is... where's the answer from the "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" brigade in that kind of scenario.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

It's pretty clear to me that the "pro" brigade here can't really justify their stance, so have fallen back on, "it was brought in by the Tories, it's not Labia's fault".

Personally I couldn't give rat's *** WHO brought it in, or WHO didn't, and who did, or didn't remove the legislation, but profited from it and increased it all.

What I CANNOT abide is the mantric "speed kills", and the way you are FORCED to incriminate yourself, or get fined for not doing so.

One of the basic tenets of British Justice, gone.

And BRITISH Justice was the one others used to envy!

Alcazar

Fishface

Sect 172 has been in its modern form since 1988 and versions have been around since 1930 something. This means it's been around much longer than some major legislation (PACE 1984 for example).

As I said, you're not incriminating yourself, merely declaring who was driving at a particular time. An essential tool for the Police in the bigger picture of traffic law.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

And if you can't declare who was driving? And have no viable reason not to be able to (according to plod).. i.e pissed and asleep at the time!?

andy97

iTrader: (1)

S172 is a request for information, not evidence. Can you please explain how information becomes primary evidence in a prosecution without need for a caution?

OllyK

Again, so what? What have NL done, in the last 10 years, to change this, regardless of who or when it was introduced?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yes, great argument

Why can't people see past the party politics? No party, Labour, Tory or otherwise has any real plans to reverse anything with regards to speed cameras, road safety legislation, call it what you will. It's here to stay regardless of who put it there and who left it there.

JTaylor

My thoughts exactly. I must say that in this instance I'm hoping that the cap fits.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

As far as I'm concerned this issue has b*gger all to do with party politics.. they're all as bad as each other. It's the principle itself that's wrong.. and you're right nobody in Government is going to do anything about it whatsoever, it being the giant cash cow that it is... hence the reason it's been taken to the ECHR.

I'm just hoping that for once they (the ECHR) do something right! Although I won't hold my breath. Anyway.. as with anything else if this goes against the Government, all they'll do to ensure it stays in place along with being able to steam roller through other legislation designed to remove long standing and basic principles is withdraw from the Human Rights Charter, or at least the parts that are inconvenient.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Facts and story making strange bedfellows yet again.

Taken from S172 - "(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was."

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Bending things to suit your argument... how can I show anything?... they'll just take my word for it that I was pissed and asleep and that it wasn't me or that I didn't know who was driving because I didn't know the car had been taken?

If you think so then I think it's you who are mixing up fact and fiction! If nothing else they'll use bully boy tactics, make threats and generally make life bloody miserable until I give them a name of somebody be that myself or or anybody else I care to point the finger at, even though in reality I'd know bugger all about the incident.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

How can quoting the actual law you are criticising be bending things to suit my argument!!!!!!!

Your second part is correct - you will be subject to legal like letters and comments to get you to fess up however within the law there is no actual legal support to do so.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

As an opener you were stating I was making bedfellows of fact and fiction.. which I was not.. that is bending the argument.

The law says a lot of things in various Acts, however how those statements and Acts are used in reality are two entirely different animals. Almost without fail anyone who says they can't remember who was driving and don't provide evidence with substance to prove that they do not know or were not themselves driving... which in the simple scenario I stated above would be extremely difficult to do then you will almost certainly end up being prosecuted for not providing the information of who was driving.

So basically you are being assumed guilty unless you can prove you are not.. if you can't prove you are not guilty but declare yourself to be not guilty (because you aren't) and can't prove that you don't know who was driving your car you will be found guilty of another offence, which in theory carries a potentially stiffer penalty. So in reality people have to choose the lesser of two evils and incriminate themselves for fear of receiving a harsher penalty! That just doesn't make sense and is plain wrong.

Not only that, if you are lucky enough to have the initial charges dropped, the likes of the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has gone on record and stated pretty much that they will hound anybody who uses a "technicality" (is the fact you did nothing wrong a technicality?) to get off a charge of this nature.

john_s

iTrader: (1)

I'd have thought it was more likely you'd then find yourself being investigated for drink driving.

John.

Fishface

Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders act 1988.

The 'power' of the legislation is justified and proportional for the legitimate aim. That was the ruling (partly from R v Yorke 2003), and will most likely be tomorrow.

People fail to see the bigger picture with 172 and how important it is in relation to more important Road Traffic Offences.