Speed Guns

[DaveH23]

Before I go in to this may I add that I have not been caught and this is purely a hypothetical question.

Of the back of the'Trafs radar 'check' hidden and from behind' thread it got me thinking of the whole innocent until proven guilty thing - does this actually exist.

If you were pulled by plod after they caught you speeding using a gun and it ended up in court could you simply say 'Prove it'

A reading on a screen and plod saying 'it was you', is this enough to prosecute?

Again I have NOT been caught on this occasion and this is purely a curiosity question.

[Nedzilla]

DaveH23 said:

A reading on a screen and plod saying 'it was you', is this enough to prosecute?

Unfortunatley,yes.

[Mikeyplum]

I always thought similar to this. Though, more along the lines of GATSO's. Imagine:

- Flash! You get caught speeding
- Forward 3 weeks, letter through the door "Pay fine" etc.
- Reply to letter asking for photographic evidence.
- Forward 2 weeks, letter through the door with a hazy black and white photo with the silhouette of a person driving.

Could you simply deny untill the nth degree that it wasn't you and you couldn't explain who it was?

Disclaimer - I may or may not know or not know anything or everything that someone including but not limited to myself has done this and has not heard anything since.

[lgw]

Have a read of Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 it explains the onus of the registered keeper to name/identify the driver of their vehicle or they are prosecuted

[Dave Hedgehog]

lgw said:

Have a read of Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 it explains the onus of the registered keeper to name/identify the driver of their vehicle or they are prosecuted

Its a great law, you have to incriminate your self, even thou its a human right not to

got to love UK justice ....

[lgw]

I agree Hedgehog totally unfair law

[DaveH23]

lgw said:

Have a read of Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 it explains the onus of the registered keeper to name/identify the driver of their vehicle or they are prosecuted

Im not saying indisclosure of who was driving.

Could you say 'yes that was me driving but I wasn't speeding'

In terms of the image posted above, I do actually have 3 points from this but I was sent 2 very clear images after being caught by a van and using landmarks such as a lampost you can clearly see I was.

[lgw]

Speeding prosecutions are weighted against the driver, many years ago I was stopped for doing an alleged 41 in a 30, stopped by police using a speed gun not sure what model it was but it would have been circa 1993, he said I was speeding never showed me the recorded speed on the gun, I went to court I was prosecuted, to be fair I may have been exceeding the limit but he never proved to me that I was

[SS2.]

Dave Hedgehog said:

Its a great law, you have to incriminate your self, even thou its a human right not to..

In the eyes of the law, you are not incriminating yourself. By completing the s.172 request (and nominating yourself as the driver), you would simply be confirming that you were driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place.

And it is not an offence in itself to simply drive a vehicle.

[Dave Hedgehog]

SS2. said:

In the eyes of the law, you are not incriminating yourself. By completing the s.172 request (and nominating yourself as the driver), you would simply be confirming that you were driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place.

And it is not an offence in itself to simply drive a vehicle.

which just goes to show how corrupt the legal system is

[Furry Exocet]

Dave Hedgehog said:

which just goes to show how corrupt the legal system is

How is it corrupt? Some people really do talk st on here

[14-7]

Furry Exocet said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

which just goes to show how corrupt the legal system is

How is it corrupt? Some people really do talk st on here

Purely because some people can't comprehend that identifying who was driving doesn't necesserily mean that any prosecution will take place.

As has been said, all you are doing is identifying who was driving. You aren't admitting to the offence.

If you wish to contest the alleged offence then by all means do so.

[Dave Hedgehog]

14-7 said:

Purely because some people can't comprehend that identifying who was driving doesn't necesserily mean that any prosecution will take place.

As has been said, all you are doing is identifying who was driving. You aren't admitting to the offence.

If you wish to contest the alleged offence then by all means do so.

im sorry but to my layman's none legally trained mind, by being forced to confess to who was driving you are automatically confessing to doing the offence

sure you can go to court and argue the toss over it, but in practise you aint going to win

so you are incriminating yourself

this violates the EU human rights

any law that requires you to do this is therefore corrupt

[SS2.]

Dave Hedgehog said:

by being forced to confess to who was driving you are automatically confessing to doing the offence..

No, you are not.

Dave Hedgehog said:

sure you can go to court and argue the toss over it, but in practise you aint going to win..

I did. And I won.

Dave Hedgehog said:

so you are incriminating yourself

this violates the EU human rights

Already been tested and, unfortunately, it doesn't.

[vonhosen]

SS2. said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

by being forced to confess to who was driving you are automatically confessing to doing the offence..

No, you are not.

Indeed.

SS2 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

sure you can go to court and argue the toss over it, but in practise you aint going to win..

I did. And I won.

Or it might not even go to court. I've received NIPs, named myself as driver & refuted the allegation that I was offending & the case dropped. Admitting you are the driver is not admitting the offence.

SS2 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

so you are incriminating yourself

this violates the EU human rights

Already been tested and, unfortunately, it doesn't.

Again, indeed.