Observer wrote:
JT wrote:
I'd have thought that if there were no requirement for the video / photographic evidence to identify the vehicle, that if merely observing and noting down the vehicle registration were sufficient, then the SCPs wouldn't waste their money buying all that expensive video equipment.
IanH wrote:
[heavy irony]Simply progress John[/heavy irony]
(Emphasis added.)
JT's comment exposes the moral illegitimacy of the 'safety partnership' speed enforcement system.
There is no legal requirement but there is the practical requirement that the remote detection/fast-track enforcement system would be simply unsustainable if any significant proportion of 'offenders' were not persuaded that they have no practical alternative course but to plead guiilty (accept the fixed penalty). Faced with video/photographic evidence of the offence and the fact that that they are compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence of driver identity, the overwhelming majority of suspects pay up and accept the points.
There is no other area of criminal law enforcement whose existence depends on the propensity of 'offenders' to accept their guilt.
I'm glad you read the irony Observer, It was written on two fairly unsubtle levels.
I have litttle problem arguing the moral dilemma surrounding 'easy' detection of offenders.
I have concerns regarding the administrative method of detection, especially in the case of remote speed detection as it is tantamount to self incrimination.
The value and effectiveness of S172TA because of S12 RTOA are being tested at every turn, reducing it to simply another minor offence at court.
But most important of all, what is the benefit?
The deterrent effect caused by the current camera methodology and enforcement strategy is affecting probably 80% of 'normal' drivers.
At best it is deterring them from driving at their safest speed.
At worst it is penalising them for driving at their safest speed.
It's nuts really

.