is it apparently so side-swiped
I think you are missing my point. I don't think it's unreaonable for an owner to made legally responsible for their car. That without evidence to the contrary, the owner is presumed to be the driver. What I find repugnant, is a law that removes a persons right to silence.
You may very well be right, but I would regard a law that would make it an offence for a driver to refuse to give that information, to be bad law. AFAIA the idea that an accused person has the right to silence, is based on the premise that guilt must be proved by the evidence alone. A fundamental principle in british law. It would appear that new legislation is seeking to remove that principle, starting with comparitively minor offences like speeding.
What I'm suggesting is not much better, but at least it doesn't undermine a persons right to silence. The wrong person may still be convicted, but making silence an offence won't remove that possibility. They may not have the right to silence, but no law can force a person to speak if they choose not to.
Much traffic law would be who
I don't believe removing a basic legal principle is the way to achieve that. In theory solid evidence should be required to prove who was driving, but I accept that in practice that that could sometimes be difficult. To buttume the owner is the driver, unless they choose, voluntarily, to name the driver, is IMO a better way to achieve a similar result. It still wouldn't be good law, but IMO it is still better than trying to force an owner to speak by making their silence an offence in itself.
I'm sure you wont agree with me. In a sense we are on opposite sides of the fence. :-) You as an ex law enforcer, and me as a law breaker. At least as far as speeding goes. I tend to drive according to conditions rather than stick rigidly to speed limits. Mike.
