to of motor that are
Because I am looking at it from a different POV. You are looking at it simply as a means of making law enforcement easier. Without regard to an individuals right to choose whether to admit to the offence, deny it, or simply accept the consequences of either decision. There could be reasons why a driver would not want to say who was driving. Personal ones that are not concerned with the offence itself.
an
Nope. My proposal wouldn't make it any easier to avoid responsibilty, because if I chose to keep quiet, I would still be convicted, even if someone else was driving. Why should I suffer further punishment because of my decision? fundamental principle, UK No-one
Certainly, but that is not the same as actually making silence a crime in itself. A judge or jury has always been able to make a judgement based on what an accused person has said or not said. All the law has done is make it official. If silence actually becomes a crime for someone accused of a driving offence, how long will it be before it's extended to other offences?
Your argument is similar to those who advocate the compulsory introduction of idenbreasty cards, or any other method of tracking individuals. They say if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you object, or in this case, if you were not the driver, why should you not name the person who was. The answer could be similar for both as well. Because of overiding personal considerations that have nothing to do with the offence or any illegal activity.
I was last convicted of speeding in 1989. I didn't whinge or moan then, and I wont whinge or moan if I'm caught in the future. I accept the law as it stands, even if there's much of it I disagree with. Mike.
