Speed camera laws infringe basic rights?

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,457
Location
between Blandford Street and Mars
Sorry if this has been posted already, if it has, could a don please delete?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

"The case essentially concerns the requirement for vehicle keepers to identify the driver of a vehicle identified on a speed camera," a spokesman said.

"The applicants claim this requirement breaches the right against self-incrimination and thereby their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under current laws a driver had two choices - either to admit they were driving, or to refuse to provide information on the driver, he said.

If the driver conceded they were driving, he said it would amount to an admission and form part of the prosecution case against them.

And if the driver refused to provide information, they would be prosecuted under different laws.

Mr Welch said: "This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this one. I for one would like to see a move away from the reliance upon fixed speed cameras, to replacement with more traditional traffic enforcement methods, namely more coppers out there, mixed with mobile speed traps, ANPR and so on. Shame that all costs money!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2003
Posts
9,682
Location
On the pale blue dot
Time to open another can of worms: speed cameras

So the BBC is reporting that some motorists are going to court complaining that by being forced to reveal who was driving their human rights are being infringed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

Okay maybe that's technically true and needs to be looked at but is this not another cheap way of getting away with breaking the law? The most common arguement is that speed cameras are a way for councils to make money, not enforce laws. If so then that should be up for debate in parliment but I still think its a cheap arguement.

You speed, you break the law and endager yourself and the lives of those around you, and so you get fined. Simple. Live with it.

Discuss :D
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,705
Location
Cambs
I previously believed this had already went through the euro courts and failed. ie the tenet of the law "innocent until proven guilty" is broken if you have to declare guilt before trial.

But then you can always go to court and say you don't know who the driver is placing the onus on the police to prove you guilty.
 
Don
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,463
Location
Wargrave, UK
SiD the Turtle said:
You speed, you break the law and endager yourself and the lives of those around you, and so you get fined. Simple. Live with it.

I would live with it if the link between breaking speed limits and an increase in accidents was proven. Which it isn't.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Nov 2003
Posts
10,949
Good and I hope they win. The law is quite clear and it is illegal to fine someone without their chance to represent themselves. What speed cameras fines do is force you to confess which is not nice to say the least.

Anyone still think we live in a free country?
 
Permabanned
Joined
13 Jan 2005
Posts
10,708
Rilot said:
I would live with it if the link between breaking speed limits and an increase in accidents was proven. Which it isn't.

Thats irrelevant surely?

If there is doubt regarding the link bertween speed and accidents then the government should be lobbied to raise speed limits.

Just because someone says 'Thats a rubbish law' is not reason to break it.

I happen to think WBA fans are terrible people, for example, but that doesnt justify me going on a murdering spree at The Hawthorns, does it?
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2003
Posts
9,682
Location
On the pale blue dot
Rilot said:
I would live with it if the link between breaking speed limits and an increase in accidents was proven. Which it isn't.

Not sure I get you. Perhaps not the number of accidents but their effects? If I run you down going 40 in a 20 zone, you are less likely to live than if I ran you down at 20.

And before anyone relplies saying that not all roads are 20mph, they are (I'd assume) graded based on their danger. 20 in a zone where you are likely to have kids running out in the street, 40 where you are perhaps less likely.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
12,283
Location
Chatteris
SiD the Turtle said:
So the BBC is reporting that some motorists are going to court complaining that by being forced to reveal who was driving their human rights are being infringed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

Okay maybe that's technically true and needs to be looked at but is this not another cheap way of getting away with breaking the law? The most common arguement is that speed cameras are a way for councils to make money, not enforce laws. If so then that should be up for debate in parliment but I still think its a cheap arguement.

You speed, you break the law and endager yourself and the lives of those around you, and so you get fined. Simple. Live with it.

Discuss :D

Of course it is.
People don't want to take responsability for their own actions and if there is even the slightest sniff that somebody can get away with committing an offence people will try it on.
You want to speed that is your choice, nobody can make that choice for you.
However if you're caught breaking the law then you should take your punishment.

How else is the system to work if people aren't forced to reveal who is driving?
The whole system would just grind to a half literally overnight - I'm sure all of these people would then approve of the "Boy Racers" doing 60mph down their roads where their kids play etc free from any fear because all they have to do is say "No, don't know who was driving".
 
Don
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,463
Location
Wargrave, UK
You are miss reading my post. I said the link between breaking speed limits. Not travelling at speed per-se.

If the government were interested in 20mph speeds they would put cameras outside schools and not on open stretches of country road.

Example:

1. Clear motorway, no traffic, good road surface, 70Mph limit, travelling at 90Mph.
2. Heavy traffic, Single lane road, raining, poor road surface, 60Mph speed limit, travelling at 50Mph.

One is perfectly safe but totally illegal.
The other is suicidal but totally legal.

The government needs to move away from this speed kills rubbish and focus on the real causes of death such as lack of observation, generally poor driving skills, badly maintained cars, un-educated perdestrians, poor signage etc.

They have drummed this speed kills message in to people so hard that they honestly believe that as long as they are driving under the posted limit, they can be waving their arms around with their eyes shut and still be perfectly safe as they aren't speeding.

I really hope that this is successful and that all speed cameras are taken down and the money ploughed in to more traffic cops on patrol.

A speed camera can't catch a drunk driver
A speed camera can't catch an un-insured driver
A speed camera can't catch someone driving dagerously
A speed camera can't catch a car theif

All they can do is catch someone breaking the posted speed limit. A traffic officer can do that already and all of the other things on top.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,705
Location
Cambs
Slinwagh said:
Or you could not speed !!!!!

Then there is no case to answer !!!!!

Oh please don't turn this thread into another anti-speed campaign. This is about the legality of the criminal justice system, it's got bugger all to do with speeding or not speeding. And if you still can't keep out of the thread please bear in mind that these speed cameras can go wrong and one day you could get a letter asking you to incriminate yourself when you were not even speeding, then again your plate may have been cloned so you may not even have been there.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2003
Posts
9,682
Location
On the pale blue dot
Rilot said:
You are miss reading my post. I said the link between breaking speed limits. Not travelling at speed per-se. Etc.

Hmm I do see your point. Perhaps then the law does need changing though I'd have no idea how to though as its a very difficult thing to manage.

However on the other side as it stands today, I'd still say breaking the speed limit is an offence and by breaking the law you should suffer a penalty, not evade it on some technicallity because you don't agree with it.*

*The general 'you', not you Rilot :D

Edit: :eek: Didn't catch your ninja edit. Perhaps then I'd agree that more cops are better than cameras, but still speeding is an offence no matter who catches you.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
3,312
pinkaardvark said:
Oh please don't turn this thread into another anti-speed campaign. This is about the legality of the criminal justice system, it's got bugger all to do with speeding or not speeding. And if you still can't keep out of the thread please bear in mind that these speed cameras can go wrong and one day you could get a letter asking you to incriminate yourself when you were not even speeding, then again your plate may have been cloned so you may not even have been there.

well said, please anti speed ****'s stay away....
 
Caporegime
Joined
11 Mar 2005
Posts
31,396
Location
Leafy Cheshire
Oakesy2001uk said:
It will be personalized numberplates or something daft, where a person has one, not a car.

Yea interesting system that, except when you have more than one driver per car etc.

Personally the way for the future will be a chip + transmitter in the car, each person has a unique ID and when they drive the car this is sent to the chip, if the camera goes off it reads the chip and knows whos driving © :)
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
3,312
pinkaardvark said:
I previously believed this had already went through the euro courts and failed. ie the tenet of the law "innocent until proven guilty" is broken if you have to declare guilt before trial.

But then you can always go to court and say you don't know who the driver is placing the onus on the police to prove you guilty.

if everyone did that then surely it would cost them too much in legal fee's etc.. and they would have to rip them all down. Lets start an OCUK Motors revolution!
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
12,283
Location
Chatteris
pinkaardvark said:
Oh please don't turn this thread into another anti-speed campaign. This is about the legality of the criminal justice system, it's got bugger all to do with speeding or not speeding. And if you still can't keep out of the thread please bear in mind that these speed cameras can go wrong and one day you could get a letter asking you to incriminate yourself when you were not even speeding, then again your plate may have been cloned so you may not even have been there.

Can't see why he shouldn't be allowed to post an anti-speeding statement.
This whole thread is yet another way people are trying to get out of not paying their fine for speeding.
 
Top