Where? What requirements? Apart from legislated items like tax, insurance etc?
The Act says "reasonable diligence". That is wholly different from the "best of your ability" and it only applies to certain road traffic offences.
Driver Notification forms for Mark! 5091In reality an impossible aim because the only people who truly know whether the offence has been committed, is the person who committed it and any witnesses who actually saw...
Because it is used as the basis of the case. Without it there is no case to answer. Nobody has a problem with being stopped by a police officer and being placed directly at the scene. I don't think there are that many that object to Trulevos or cameras that photograph the car the from the front and can thus place the driver at the scene. The problem is only with cameras that are incapable of making the case without the driver incriminating himself.
I have a problem with policing by robot in general but that is another debate.
'registered keeper' actually, but pedantry aside...
Quite. And that is the problem.
Fine. I don't have a problem with that. The keeper of a vehicle is not required, in any way shape or form to keep records of who was driving where and when. Without such records the answer "don't know" is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately the system is now so twisted that that answer is not acceptable.
Well, we'll have to differ on that then. If you don't like it then campaign for a change in the law to make driver records compulsory. If you feel it would never be possible or accepted then you have to accept that the answer "don't know" is perfectly valid.
I don't have a problem (ok I do really but I can probably deal with it) with the keeper being required to divulge the information in cases like that, if known. I have a bigger problem with the fact that the answer "don't know" seems to be unacceptable.
But you accept that in GATSO cases it amounts to the same thing so we can, for the purposes of this argument accept that, in GATSO cases, admitting you were the driver at the time is self-incrimination.
Except in GATSO cases.
Apart from a ringed car, a different driver or a faulty camera it's pretty much a closed case once the driver is identified.
In the case of a GATSO it is. The burden of proof is and always has been on the prosecution and forcing the driver to self-incriminate because they are incapable of making the case themselves is not on. It is a corruption of a basic premise in english law.
As a generality yes. In the case where it becomes the make or break evidence for a case, no.
Note: GATSO should really be read to include all camera systems where the driver is not positively identified at the time of the offence.
Mark.
-- Mark Foster, Brighton, Suslove, UK PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" Driving, HMSO
