Speed Camera Loophole Exposed
Discussion
Turbobloke, the following passages from the ECtHR judgement in O'Halloran and Francis explain the position:-
"57. ...
...The Court notes that, although both the compulsion and the underlying offences were “criminal” in nature, the compulsion flowed from the fact, as Lord Bingham expressed it in the Privy Council in the case of Brown v. Stott (see paragraph 31 above), that “[a]ll who own or drive motor cars know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime. This regime is imposed not because owning or driving cars is a privilege or indulgence granted by the State but because the possession and use of cars (like, for example, shotguns ...) are recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury”. Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road-traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.
58. A further aspect of the compulsion applied in the present cases is the limited nature of the inquiry which the police were authorised to undertake. Section 172(2)(a) applies only where the driver of the vehicle is alleged to have committed a relevant offence, and authorises the police to require information only “as to the identity of the driver”. The information is thus markedly more restricted than in previous cases, in which applicants have been subjected to statutory powers requiring production of “papers and documents of any kind relating to operations of interest to [the] department” (see Funke, cited above, § 30), or of “documents, etc., which might be relevant for the assessment of taxes” (see J.B. v. Switzerland, cited above, § 39). In Heaney and McGuinness the applicants were required to give a “full account of [their] movements and actions during any specified period” (cited above, § 24), and in Shannon, information could be sought (with only a limited legal professional privilege restriction) on any matter which appeared to the investigator to relate to the investigation (see reference at § 23 of Shannon, cited above). The information requested of the applicant in Weh was limited, as in the present case, to “information as to who had driven a certain motor vehicle ... at a certain time ...” (see Weh, cited above, § 24). The Court found no violation of Article 6 in that case on the ground that no proceedings were pending or anticipated against him. It noted that the requirement to state a simple fact – who had been the driver of the car – was not in itself incriminating (ibid., §§ 53-54). Further, as Lord Bingham noted in Brown v. Stott (paragraph 31 above), section 172 does not sanction prolonged questioning about facts alleged to give rise to criminal offences, and the penalty for declining to answer is “moderate and non-custodial”."
There's no inconsistency beween this and the summary you refer to above.
Would you still object to s172 being used in the case of someone who drove at 140 mph and ran someone over? By what principle can we determine that that would be OK but in a case of, say, 40 in a 30 s172 wouldn't be OK?
For those who want lots of traffic police out there patrolling and using discretion, good idea, but who is going to pay for this?
"57. ...
...The Court notes that, although both the compulsion and the underlying offences were “criminal” in nature, the compulsion flowed from the fact, as Lord Bingham expressed it in the Privy Council in the case of Brown v. Stott (see paragraph 31 above), that “[a]ll who own or drive motor cars know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime. This regime is imposed not because owning or driving cars is a privilege or indulgence granted by the State but because the possession and use of cars (like, for example, shotguns ...) are recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury”. Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road-traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.
58. A further aspect of the compulsion applied in the present cases is the limited nature of the inquiry which the police were authorised to undertake. Section 172(2)(a) applies only where the driver of the vehicle is alleged to have committed a relevant offence, and authorises the police to require information only “as to the identity of the driver”. The information is thus markedly more restricted than in previous cases, in which applicants have been subjected to statutory powers requiring production of “papers and documents of any kind relating to operations of interest to [the] department” (see Funke, cited above, § 30), or of “documents, etc., which might be relevant for the assessment of taxes” (see J.B. v. Switzerland, cited above, § 39). In Heaney and McGuinness the applicants were required to give a “full account of [their] movements and actions during any specified period” (cited above, § 24), and in Shannon, information could be sought (with only a limited legal professional privilege restriction) on any matter which appeared to the investigator to relate to the investigation (see reference at § 23 of Shannon, cited above). The information requested of the applicant in Weh was limited, as in the present case, to “information as to who had driven a certain motor vehicle ... at a certain time ...” (see Weh, cited above, § 24). The Court found no violation of Article 6 in that case on the ground that no proceedings were pending or anticipated against him. It noted that the requirement to state a simple fact – who had been the driver of the car – was not in itself incriminating (ibid., §§ 53-54). Further, as Lord Bingham noted in Brown v. Stott (paragraph 31 above), section 172 does not sanction prolonged questioning about facts alleged to give rise to criminal offences, and the penalty for declining to answer is “moderate and non-custodial”."
There's no inconsistency beween this and the summary you refer to above.
Would you still object to s172 being used in the case of someone who drove at 140 mph and ran someone over? By what principle can we determine that that would be OK but in a case of, say, 40 in a 30 s172 wouldn't be OK?
For those who want lots of traffic police out there patrolling and using discretion, good idea, but who is going to pay for this?
Breadvan72 said:
Would you still object to s172 being used in the case of someone who drove at 140 mph and ran someone over? By what principle can we determine that that would be OK but in a case of, say, 40 in a 30 s172 wouldn't be OK?
For those who want lots of traffic police out there patrolling and using discretion, good idea, but who is going to pay for this?
The speed is irrelevant to the principle, unless your comment is an appeal to lawmaking and/or enforcement based on expediency with emotion trumping reason? Somebody in a fatal at 140, that sounds like a polac.
Your other comment assumes more police are needed. There are enough police overseeing the roads, they just need better leadership.
Speed is a relatively minor issue in road safety terms, particularly for drivers aged 25 and over. 2% of road accidents are caused by this group - which is more likely to consist of experienced drivers - exceeding the posted speed limit. For that high-risk group of inexperienced drivers 17-19 it rises to 8%. That leaves between 98% and 92% of accidents with causes that need greater attention. There needs to be a massive shift of emphasis away from speed and speed limits. The above figures are from a DfT report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, based on analysis of a statistically significant 147,509 accidents.
In a similar study which corroborates the above findings, exceeding a speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars involved in an accident, while travelling too fast for the conditions was attributed to 6%. For fatal accidents these figures were 10% and 13% respectively. Nearly 90% of car fatacs aren't caused by exceeding a limit. This is from DfT evidence submitted to the HoC Select Committee on Transport.
Ignoring the fact that speed limits are set nowadays for political correctness and poetic reasons rather than safety reasons (twenty is plenty etc) regardless of posturing to the contrary (get hold of speed limit reduction consultation responses and see how often police objected) the current approach involving automated blanket enforcement of limits is failing everyone.
Speed limits whether set wisely or foolishly are good for two things, one is to help police to remove dangerous drivers from the roads where excess speed is involved, which will often be within the posted limit. At the moment, everyone swallowing the speedophobic safety totalitarian mantra will consider travelling within the speed limit to be safe, which is nonsense.
Secondly, if they were not already in disrepute, speed limits could warn drivers of a hazard that even a reasonably competent driver might not be able to anticipate but should allow for. As things stand we have automated blanket enforcement of a technicality in a manner distanced from safety, including via the absolute offence nature of exceeding a limit.
What they are not useful for is criminalising safe behaviour on a technicality. Those who take the trouble to examine and understand the data know this, and they get support from others who understand the primcples of natural justice.
On expediency:
Robert McNamara said:
Measure what is important, don't make important what you can measure.
On automated enforcement:Paul Garvin when Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary said:
The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless.
On the disproportionate approach:Paul Stephenson when Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary said:
There is a perception that people who commit criminal offences and who, quite properly and according to guidelines, get a caution, get an easier ride than those who speed at the lower end. Whilst clearly the comparison is not a helpful one, I do nevertheless have some very real sympathy for this perception. Any criminal justice system to be effective has to be seen to be fair. It just cannot be right when people feel that our response within that system is disproportionate.
Taking all of the above into account, there's no fundamental reason why an offence involving exceeding a speed limit should be allowed to include forced self-incrimination or confession in its prosecution. A better route would be to capture evidence of identity as the offence is committed, and better still, ignore propaganda from emoting zealots and focus on more important things that kill and injure the vast majority of people via accidents on the roads.turbobloke said:
Taking all of the above into account, there's no fundamental reason why an offence involving exceeding a speed limit should be allowed to include forced self-incrimination or confession in its prosecution. A better route would be to capture evidence of identity as the offence is committed, and better still, ignore propaganda from emoting zealots and focus on more important things that kill and injure the vast majority of people via accidents on the roads.
The decision on the ruling in the O'Halloran/Francis case was not unanimous. One of the dissenting judges offered these words of wisdom:ECHR Judge said:
In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution. And if this is the case, maybe the time has come to review speed limits and to set limits that would more correctly reflect peoples' needs. We cannot force people in the twenty-first century to ride bicycles or start jogging instead of enjoying the advantages which our civilisation brings. Equally, it is difficult for me to accept the argument that hundreds of thousands of speeding motorists are wrong and only the government is right. Moreover, the government is free to breach the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the field of speed regulations. In my view, the saying “the ends justify the means” is clearly not applicable to the present situation.
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
It is perfectly obvious that for an individual to state that he was the driver of a car which was speeding illegally is tantamount to a confession that he was in breach of the speed regulations.
With reference to the "degree of compulsion", I would like to draw readers' attention to the fact that the punishment laid down by the United Kingdom legislation for failure to disclose information about a person alleged to have committed a criminal offence is equal to the punishment laid down for the criminal offence itself. I find this "degree of compulsion" disproportionately high.
I understand the reasoning behind the departure from the basic principles of a fair trial in the case of speed violations: namely, that such offences represent hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases, and that the State is unable to ensure that in each of this vast number of cases all the procedural guarantees have been complied with. I repeat: I understand this line of reasoning, but I do not accept it. In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution. And if this is the case, maybe the time has come to review speed limits and to set limits that would more correctly reflect peoples' needs. We cannot force people in the twenty-first century to ride bicycles or start jogging instead of enjoying the advantages which our civilisation brings. Equally, it is difficult for me to accept the argument that hundreds of thousands of speeding motorists are wrong and only the government is right. Moreover, the government is free to breach the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the field of speed regulations. In my view, the saying "the ends justify the means" is clearly not applicable to the present situation.
With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.With reference to the "degree of compulsion", I would like to draw readers' attention to the fact that the punishment laid down by the United Kingdom legislation for failure to disclose information about a person alleged to have committed a criminal offence is equal to the punishment laid down for the criminal offence itself. I find this "degree of compulsion" disproportionately high.
I understand the reasoning behind the departure from the basic principles of a fair trial in the case of speed violations: namely, that such offences represent hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases, and that the State is unable to ensure that in each of this vast number of cases all the procedural guarantees have been complied with. I repeat: I understand this line of reasoning, but I do not accept it. In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution. And if this is the case, maybe the time has come to review speed limits and to set limits that would more correctly reflect peoples' needs. We cannot force people in the twenty-first century to ride bicycles or start jogging instead of enjoying the advantages which our civilisation brings. Equally, it is difficult for me to accept the argument that hundreds of thousands of speeding motorists are wrong and only the government is right. Moreover, the government is free to breach the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the field of speed regulations. In my view, the saying "the ends justify the means" is clearly not applicable to the present situation.
The third one hits the spot for me.
I see the reasoning, but narrowly prefer the majority view. There are many encroachments on liberty by the State that are worth worrying about. This one, placed in the context of operating vehicles within a regulatory scheme, doesn't strike me as one for the barricades.
As for the wider arguments as to what speed limits should be, that's another issue. I agree that many limits are inappropriately low. Arguments about whether or not speed is a factor in some, many or most vehicle accidents are bedevilled by statistics spun by people taking an often extreme position on each side of the argument. As for speed enforcement it doesn't look to me that there are enough traffic police to deal with the number of drivers out there. I would like to see much more enforcement directed at tailgating, lane weaving, lane blocking, mobile phone use and other anti social and often dangerous types of driving, but as usual the question is one of resources.
As for the wider arguments as to what speed limits should be, that's another issue. I agree that many limits are inappropriately low. Arguments about whether or not speed is a factor in some, many or most vehicle accidents are bedevilled by statistics spun by people taking an often extreme position on each side of the argument. As for speed enforcement it doesn't look to me that there are enough traffic police to deal with the number of drivers out there. I would like to see much more enforcement directed at tailgating, lane weaving, lane blocking, mobile phone use and other anti social and often dangerous types of driving, but as usual the question is one of resources.
Red Devil said:
With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.
The third one hits the spot for me.
Completely wrong. The third one hits the spot for me.
The maximum sentence for speeding is a fine of up to £2,500. Fail to provide info has a maximum fine of £1000.
A lifetime disqualification from driving is available for both offences.
"Speed is a relatively minor issue in road safety terms, particularly for drivers aged 25 and over. 2% of road accidents are caused by this group"
Complete nonsense, that's why you cite no sources.
This fallacious myth is regularly trotted out. It's complete rubbish, based on a misreading of the stats, only the crackpot ABD cite this mendacious falsehood, and they've been roundly criticised for it.
This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as "extremely naughty" and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as "mischievous".
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.
The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:
drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record.
Complete nonsense, that's why you cite no sources.
This fallacious myth is regularly trotted out. It's complete rubbish, based on a misreading of the stats, only the crackpot ABD cite this mendacious falsehood, and they've been roundly criticised for it.
This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as "extremely naughty" and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as "mischievous".
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.
The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:
drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record.
Breadvan72 said:
Because, contrary to the drivel spouted on Peepipoo and other such "going as fast as I want is a fundamental human right" sites, the law does not operate by sorcery, or by antique standards of technicality and ballsaching, so that if some magic word isn't used, or a document that evidences driving isn't signed, it doesn't matter. Substance tends to trump form, and, as a general rule, taking the piss doesn't work.
I'm not a legal person. Just a man in the street. Who, once upon a time, though that:-I was innocent until proven guilty
Didn't have to incriminate myself
Then the speed camera came along. Which is fatally flawed unless the above is thrown out of the window. So they did.
RIP The Magna Carta
Breadvan72 said:
We are licensed to operate (potentially dangerous) machines. A quid pro quo for that is that if the machine is seen doing something against the law, we can be asked to state who was operating the machine at the time. It's hardly a huge erosion of liberty. By temperament and by profession I am suspicious of State power and zealous about civil liberties, but speed control is not a subject that gets my liberty bells ringing.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 16th August 16:16
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
robinessex said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
You get a million Godwin points for that, and minus a billion points for having any sense of proportion. Look around the world at real tyrannies. S 172 is a First World Problem that bothers whingy and entitled middle class motorists, but is it really such a big deal? We have had it for ages and haven't descended into Totalitarianism in consequence.Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
As for Magna Carta, that was mostly repealed ages ago. The sky did not fall in.
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.
This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral.If we allow a few carefully selected and closely monitored people to use the roads individual choices could be wide. If we wish for mass use we have to accept that standards will be difficult to maintain and that monitoring and accountability impractical.
In this environment it is inevitable that we will limit choices made on how the roads are used in the interests of public safety.
This is particularly important where there is no serious and imminent risk created by each individual conduct (and no corresponding moral duty to behave differently) but, on a national scale, with many millions of similar actions, there is a significant risk to road safety.
So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.
If the State relied on people choosing how much tax to pay on the basis of what they believed was a morally correct sum the country would grind to a halt. And so it would be with the roads.
Zeeky said:
In this environment it is inevitable that we will limit choices made on how the roads are used in the interests of public safety.
If only speed limits were set and enforced in relation to safety. The separation of limits, enforcement and safety is self-evident. All that's left by way of a 'link' is spin and emotive hype.
Steve Walsh former Staffordshire Police and member of ACPO speed camera team said:
Forces were only allowed to join the 'cash for cameras' scheme if they signed up to increasing massively the numbers of tickets issued. It was not about road safety.
Zeeky said:
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.
This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral......
So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.
Some years ago there were two sets of roadworks on the M6, if I remember correctly on the section between Gailey and Stafford south. There was a gap of a couple of miles between them, but the 50 limit that was imposed covered both sets of roadworks and the section in between.
There were signs in place saying something on the lines of: "Speed limit still in force for your safety"
There was, in truth, no reason whatsoever for that 50-limited section of motorway clear of roadworks. It was a "normal" section of motorway, which somebody in their infinite wisdom had decided should also be limited.
There are plenty of examples of 30 limits through villages that are a couple of miles apart, with an NSL section in between. Nobody in their right mind (so that excludes BRAKE) would argue the 30 limit should be applied between those villages "for reasons of your safety." But let us for the sake of illustration assume that some fool did.
In both of these cases, one actual and the other hypothetical (although I suspect that somebody could cite an instance of the latter somewhere in the country), a driver traversing that section of road will observe the conditions. And the conditions will tell them that the limit is unreasonable. Therefore there is a far higher likelihood of the limit being ignored than in an area where a driver will see a compelling reason for it.
By your logic, the limit is there so therefore it must be correct and justifiable so therefore more enforcement should take place. And that, of course, is exactly the sort of thing that was happening when camera vans were in their heyday.
If you have a rule or a law that nobody is taking any notice of then, as the judge said, there is probably something wrong with the rule or the law. Two non-motoring related instances spring immediately to mind:
1. The abolition of dog licences in the 1970s. So many people didn't see the necessity so ignored the rule that the authorities were faced with either more strict enforcement (a practical impossibility), or dispensing with the regulation. They took the sensible course of action.
2. Under British Waterways, you needed a permit to cycle on towpaths around the country (there were a few, such as the Kennet & Avon canal, and most canals in London, where you didn't need one just to complicate the matter) and you were only allowed to cycle on certain towpaths that British Waterways permitted cycling on. Since the Canals & Rivers Trust took over the management of inland waterways in July 2012, a permit is no longer required and you can cycle on a towpath anywhere in the country unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting it. Once again, so many people were either ignoring the regulation or simply didn't know about it that the regulation itself was abolished.
When you read the sensationalist drivel in newspapers running stories on the lines of: "100,000 drivers caught by this speed camera over 12 months" it clearly shows to the average person that there is something wrong with the limit, not that it has caught 100,000 nutters.
agtlaw said:
Red Devil said:
With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.
The third one hits the spot for me.
Completely wrong. The third one hits the spot for me.
The maximum sentence for speeding is a fine of up to £2,500. Fail to provide info has a maximum fine of £1000.
A lifetime disqualification from driving is available for both offences.
I'm concerned with what actually does happen in the majority of instances in the real world, not the upper extremities of what could. How often is the maximum available fine imposed? Practically never I would suggest. I have my doubts that there is a significant difference in the mean level of fines (S172 as against excess speed) either. If you have evidence to the contrary I will willingly concede.
Note the bit in bold above. I will wager that what I said about penalty points is true. The majority of those convicted for exceeding the limit will only get 3 on their licence, whereas S172 offenders will get 6. Do you know any of the latter who have received less? That is the disparity I was referring to. Points x2 are likely to have a bigger effect on insurance premiums as well. From where I'm standing that's getting close to double jeopardy.
Zeeky said:
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.
This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral.If we allow a few carefully selected and closely monitored people to use the roads individual choices could be wide. If we wish for mass use we have to accept that standards will be difficult to maintain and that monitoring and accountability impractical.
In this environment it is inevitable that we will limit choices made on how the roads are used in the interests of public safety.
This is particularly important where there is no serious and imminent risk created by each individual conduct (and no corresponding moral duty to behave differently) but, on a national scale, with many millions of similar actions, there is a significant risk to road safety.
So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.
If the State relied on people choosing how much tax to pay on the basis of what they believed was a morally correct sum the country would grind to a halt. And so it would be with the roads.
Unlike you BV doesn't attempt to rubbish the judge's reasoning. Indeed he says he understands it but nevertheless comes down on the side of the majority verdict. I can respect that even though I am on the other side of that particular fence.
rs1952 said:
Zeeky said:
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.
This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral......
So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.
[irrelevant examples]
By your logic, the limit is there so therefore it must be correct and justifiable so therefore more enforcement should take place.
It is inevitable that blanket limits will be contravened on a huge scale. It doesn't follow that they do not achieve reductions in speeds generally that benefit road safety.
If that objective is achieved the fact of mass contravention is irrelevant unless one believes the criminal law should only be used to prohibit behaviour that the vast majority of people choose not to do without the prohibition.
If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.
Red Devil said:
agtlaw said:
Red Devil said:
With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.
The third one hits the spot for me.
Completely wrong. The third one hits the spot for me.
The maximum sentence for speeding is a fine of up to £2,500. Fail to provide info has a maximum fine of £1000.
A lifetime disqualification from driving is available for both offences.
I'm concerned with what actually does happen in the majority of instances in the real world, not the upper extremities of what could. How often is the maximum available fine imposed? Practically never I would suggest. I have my doubts that there is a significant difference in the mean level of fines (S172 as against excess speed) either. If you have evidence to the contrary I will willingly concede.
Note the bit in bold above. I will wager that what I said about penalty points is true. The majority of those convicted for exceeding the limit will only get 3 on their licence, whereas S172 offenders will get 6. Do you know any of the latter who have received less? That is the disparity I was referring to. Points x2 are likely to have a bigger effect on insurance premiums as well. From where I'm standing that's getting close to double jeopardy.
Zeeky said:
ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:
...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.
This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral.If we allow a few carefully selected and closely monitored people to use the roads individual choices could be wide. If we wish for mass use we have to accept that standards will be difficult to maintain and that monitoring and accountability impractical.
In this environment it is inevitable that we will limit choices made on how the roads are used in the interests of public safety.
This is particularly important where there is no serious and imminent risk created by each individual conduct (and no corresponding moral duty to behave differently) but, on a national scale, with many millions of similar actions, there is a significant risk to road safety.
So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.
If the State relied on people choosing how much tax to pay on the basis of what they believed was a morally correct sum the country would grind to a halt. And so it would be with the roads.
Unlike you BV doesn't attempt to rubbish the judge's reasoning. Indeed he says he understands it but nevertheless comes down on the side of the majority verdict. I can respect that even though I am on the other side of that particular fence.
Zeeky said:
I am saying the opposite. The limit doesn't need to be correct and justifiable in the circumstances for limits to be justified generally.
It is inevitable that blanket limits will be contravened on a huge scale. It doesn't follow that they do not achieve reductions in speeds generally that benefit road safety.
Perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with the Martin Parker study before passing comment. The Martin Parker study is the most objective, scientific and comprehensive investigation into driver behaviour towards speed limits ever carried out and remains to this day the definitive authority on this subject.It is inevitable that blanket limits will be contravened on a huge scale. It doesn't follow that they do not achieve reductions in speeds generally that benefit road safety.
Martin Parker study said:
The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
Zeeky said:
If that objective is achieved the fact of mass contravention is irrelevant unless one believes the criminal law should only be used to prohibit behaviour that the vast majority of people choose not to do without the prohibition.
If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.
That is a complete and utter non sequitur. You cannot possibly compare the complex cognitive demands of driving to paying taxes! Contrary to myth, when drivers transgress a speed limit, it is not normally done as a conscious act of selfish and wilful negligence.If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.
Deadly Dog said:
...Perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with the Martin Parker study before passing comment.
That is an argument against the benefits to road safety of reducing speed. Governments are not bound by any particular evidence when making policy driven regulations. It doesn't affect the law.Deadly Dog said:
...
Zeeky said:
If that objective is achieved the fact of mass contravention is irrelevant unless one believes the criminal law should only be used to prohibit behaviour that the vast majority of people choose not to do without the prohibition.
If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.
That is a complete and utter non sequitur. You cannot possibly compare the complex cognitive demands of driving to paying taxes! Contrary to myth, when drivers transgress a speed limit, it is not normally done as a conscious act of selfish and wilful negligence.If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.
Of course regulations deal with different subject matter but that doesn't alter the principle that it is the objective that is relevant, not the morality of the conduct being controlled.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff