Safe Speed Forums

[discuss]

If the ECHR rule that S172 breaks the right to silence, what will the UK government do? Serious possibilities please - I doubt they will dismantle the speed camera partnerships overnight!

If ECHR rule that S172 isn't a breach of the right not to self incriminate, are there any more appeals allowed?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

In all probability ignore it.

Can they?

(serious question)

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

make speeding caught by camera fine only, paid by the RK.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

I think they have that in the Netherlands?

what would happen for minor non injury accidents,

Same as happens now. Cops will say they're not interested and leave the insurance companies to sort it out.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

What's that got to do with speeding?

I agree with MrsMiggins - if s172 were repealed then speeding could simply be made into a minor civil offence, for which the vehicle keeper were responsible. Of course if it were de-crimininalised in this way it would no longer be possible to endorse licences for it, as there would no longer be any admissible evidence of who the driver was.

In a way this would be pretty apt, as it would show camera-detected speeding up for the pure revenue collecting scheme that it really is, just like decriminalised parking. It would be great for the cash-camera partnerships who would be able to collect much more money from drivers as they would no longer be at risk of being banned once they'd been nabbed four consecutive times.

They would of course have to stop bleating about trying to make the roads safer, but seeing as no-one believes them any more that wouldn't be a big deal would it - they'd just be seen as another branch of revenue collectors like parking wardens.

Of course "proper" motoring offences would be unaffected, that is to say any motoring offences detected by a policeman who stops the driver at the time, as here there is no need for s172 and/or any form of enforced self-incrimination. This would eventually lead to the beneficial situation where points on licences would have a much stronger correlation to bad driving, something which is being steadily eroded under the present regime.

So from all angles there are a number of positives should the ECHR uphold this appeal. However the two huge imponderables in that case are:

1. How many fines would they have to reimburse for drivers caught in the past, and how much compensation would they have to pay out to people who have consequently been wrongly banned, lost jobs etc.?

(Or would this not be such a big deal? Would it only affect cases where drivers had pleaded Not Guilty and fought the case in court?)

2. This could actually lead to a dangerous proliferation of speed cameras. Time and again we hear drivers say they don't mind the fines, they just don't want the points on their licences. There is clearly a danger that if points were no longer dished out for camera offences then opposition to cameras might actually decrease, leading to yet more of the bloody things along with all the associated negative side-effects.

Or will the ECHR fudge it, and give our Government a handy little rabbit hole to disappear into, and retain the status quo?

It pains me to say it, but I'd rate it about 80% probability of the latter...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

TBH I am not that interested in the speeding argument but the wider implications, the one scenario car A prangs car B say in Tesco's car park, car A leaves the scene without leaving any details, there are 2 persons insured to drive the vehicle, the s172 request goes to the RK, they refuse to comply, or more drastically car A is seen in an area where a child has been abducted, the RK is asked who was driving they refuse to comply

the only other way around it is for the RK to be cautioned and interviewed by the plod

I don't believe S172 is currently used in such cases anyway so no change there.



S172 gives the RK 28 days to reply, if a child has been abducted I would want a damn sight faster response than that.

S172 is only any use for minor offences, even then the potential for fraud and perjury is massive, the higher the stakes the more likely people are to simply not reply and take the S172 conviction.

I agree.

ISTR that s172 can only apply to offences attracting a fine of £1,000 or less.

In other words, the situations where the public interest might possibly be served by it's use (ie serious motoring offences) it doesn't apply anyway.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

lost the appeal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/6251936.stm

If anything, the potential long term reaction to this ruling (in non-motoring circumstances) is more frightening than the knee jerk reaction we might have seen if it had gone the other way.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I agree, yet another nail in the coffin of our personal freedom

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

I didn't like some of the thinking expressed in the ruling.

I paraphrase:

If you drive a car then you are deemed to have agreed to comply with the motoring laws applicable. If part of these laws sign away your right to silence then so be it.

Please correct me if I have interpreted the logic incorrectly.

So local motoring law overrides the ECHR provisions on self-incrimination? Why only motoring law? The logic is that by living in a country you agree to comply with its laws. If those laws remove your right to silence is this OK?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

That's my reading too. The extrapolation of the majority decision's argument goes like this;

By living in [Insert EU Member State], you have tacitly accepted the rules that apply and therefore you can have no expectation of relief from how those rules are applied.


At least it will reduce the case backlog at the ECHR since they've just removed any reason for any government to comply with the Convention.


I would however like to congratulate Mr. Pavlovschi for an eloquent rebuttal of the contradictory and logically inconsistent drivel that was served up by what is supposed to be our back-line defence against injustice. I think I might move to Moldova.

Please direct discussions to overlapping thread: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14943

Sorry for any hassle, it's the best I can do with the software.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety