RE: Dirty Plates
Monday 28th January 2002
Dirty Plates
The RAC is advising motorists to ensure that their number plates are clean. It follows a spate of calls to their helplines from motorists who have been stopped by the police for having illegible plates.
The increasing use of cameras has heightened awareness amongst the police of the need for clean plates. Recently introduced legislation means the penalty for having an obscured plate can be as much a £1,000.
Discussion
Dead right ZZR600. Am I supposed to pull over every couple of miles to make sure my number plate is nice and clean, or are we going to have little washer jets fitted to cars which wash the plates from time to time?. That would be nice, we could put little blue lights on the jets - or would that spoil the photo? sorry officer.
I know, gatsos could be fitted with hosepipes that spray your number plate before the flash goes off and a little loofah thing that shoots out and scrubs the mud off.
Well, it's about as sensible as most of the bollocks the tree huggers come up with.
I know, gatsos could be fitted with hosepipes that spray your number plate before the flash goes off and a little loofah thing that shoots out and scrubs the mud off.
Well, it's about as sensible as most of the bollocks the tree huggers come up with.
I don't see why the RAC can't be more supportive of the motorist - they don't need to ape the ABD, but I reckon if they had the balls to be a bit more objective and critical about some of the rubbish that BLiars lot come up with, they'd win business from the AA which also patently fails to fight the corner of the motorist.
Chaps, not wishing to urinate on your fire but legally this is on dodgy ground. You are supposed to ensure that your car / bike / three-wheeler is road worthy before venturing out on to the public highways. This means that you need to make sure that the lights work, you wont break down and that your tyres are OK, have enough windscreen wash (etc.etc.etc).
If you fail to do so then you can potentially get a fine and / or points for not. Now, dont get me wrong, I have a small estate that simply attracts the crud to the back (a la VW Golf too). A simple 100 mile journey is enough to blacken the back of it - but a picky (or is that pricky) Policeman can justify that you should have checked......
Sorry, but probably need an official legal perspective on this rather than a laymans like mine...
Cheers,
Paul
If you fail to do so then you can potentially get a fine and / or points for not. Now, dont get me wrong, I have a small estate that simply attracts the crud to the back (a la VW Golf too). A simple 100 mile journey is enough to blacken the back of it - but a picky (or is that pricky) Policeman can justify that you should have checked......
Sorry, but probably need an official legal perspective on this rather than a laymans like mine...
Cheers,
Paul
"You are supposed to ensure that your car / bike / three-wheeler is road worthy before venturing out on to the public highways. This means that you need to make sure that the lights work, you wont break down and that your tyres are OK, have enough windscreen wash (etc.etc.etc)."
They say this, but what if YOU DID check it, and then proceeded to travel 400 miles without a stop?? (I can, and have done this!) I traveled 160 to the Mull of Kintyre recently, I got there and the car was covered in scum from the mirrors to the bootlid! The bonnet and wings were blue, the rest was brown! You could barely make out the shape of the rear plate, let alone read it! Surely plod have to make some consessions for the distance and weather you've been travelling in!! When I got to Machrihannish (Campbletown) the friendly local plod said I should clean the plates, lights and rear and front window and even provided a bucket of HOT water, some car cleaning fluid and a sponge! And a cup of Tea!!
They say this, but what if YOU DID check it, and then proceeded to travel 400 miles without a stop?? (I can, and have done this!) I traveled 160 to the Mull of Kintyre recently, I got there and the car was covered in scum from the mirrors to the bootlid! The bonnet and wings were blue, the rest was brown! You could barely make out the shape of the rear plate, let alone read it! Surely plod have to make some consessions for the distance and weather you've been travelling in!! When I got to Machrihannish (Campbletown) the friendly local plod said I should clean the plates, lights and rear and front window and even provided a bucket of HOT water, some car cleaning fluid and a sponge! And a cup of Tea!!
Whilst obscuring registration plates is a possible way of avoiding cameras the following should be noted: Police forces are able to use image enhancement technology to identify the number.
In the early days of speed cameras this was prohibited as being 'tampering with the evidence', but this loophole has now been closed.
The legal position is simple - if stopped and the registration plate is not clearly visible then a fine of up to £1000 may be imposed.
Much better to invoke the-now largely defunct- right to silence.
It may be possible to avoid an expensive speeding fine, even a ban, in this way.
A recent Scottish court case saw the judge rule against Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which states the police can demand to know who was driving the vehicle at the time of a suspected offence.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Margaret Brown, claimed that Section 172 contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights which states emphatically, that; "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
Lord Justice General Lord Rodger, the presiding judge, found that Miss Brown had been 'subjected to compulsion to incriminate herself under threat of being found guilty of an offence'.
The ruling could have far reaching implications for UK road laws. By demanding to know who was driving a vehicle, the police will be contravening the EC directive, and breaching an individual's human rights. The result is that you could simply refuse to say who was driving the vehicle at the time the speed camera photographed it, citing the EC convention which does not allow the police to force the alleged driver to incriminate themselves.
Motoring organisations have said the ruling could have momentous implications, allowing the majority of speeders caught on camera to walk away without even a slap on the wrists.
In October 1999, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson had a speeding case thrown out of court, when the police couldn't prove it was actually Mr Ferguson driving the vehicle. The club claimed they'd 'failed to discover who was driving the vehicle', making it impossible for the authorities to successfully press charges.
The consequences of the ruling are already causing headaches for the Home Office. As a precedent has been set in Scotland, the same rules should soon apply to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Far better to use the law for your own purposes that have the law used against you for someone else's!
In the early days of speed cameras this was prohibited as being 'tampering with the evidence', but this loophole has now been closed.
The legal position is simple - if stopped and the registration plate is not clearly visible then a fine of up to £1000 may be imposed.
Much better to invoke the-now largely defunct- right to silence.
It may be possible to avoid an expensive speeding fine, even a ban, in this way.
A recent Scottish court case saw the judge rule against Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which states the police can demand to know who was driving the vehicle at the time of a suspected offence.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Margaret Brown, claimed that Section 172 contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights which states emphatically, that; "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
Lord Justice General Lord Rodger, the presiding judge, found that Miss Brown had been 'subjected to compulsion to incriminate herself under threat of being found guilty of an offence'.
The ruling could have far reaching implications for UK road laws. By demanding to know who was driving a vehicle, the police will be contravening the EC directive, and breaching an individual's human rights. The result is that you could simply refuse to say who was driving the vehicle at the time the speed camera photographed it, citing the EC convention which does not allow the police to force the alleged driver to incriminate themselves.
Motoring organisations have said the ruling could have momentous implications, allowing the majority of speeders caught on camera to walk away without even a slap on the wrists.
In October 1999, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson had a speeding case thrown out of court, when the police couldn't prove it was actually Mr Ferguson driving the vehicle. The club claimed they'd 'failed to discover who was driving the vehicle', making it impossible for the authorities to successfully press charges.
The consequences of the ruling are already causing headaches for the Home Office. As a precedent has been set in Scotland, the same rules should soon apply to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Far better to use the law for your own purposes that have the law used against you for someone else's!
Hasnt a chap from up north somewhere been given leave by the magistrate to offer this debate to the ECHR?
I had thought that magistrates take a very dim view of this, the only thing that we can hope for I supppose is that they set a european precedent that overrules the currennt law in the UK.
Matt.
I had thought that magistrates take a very dim view of this, the only thing that we can hope for I supppose is that they set a european precedent that overrules the currennt law in the UK.
Matt.
quote:I was under the impression that this decision was overturned by the privy council.. ?
Lord Justice General Lord Rodger, the presiding judge, found that Miss Brown had been 'subjected to compulsion to incriminate herself under threat of being found guilty of an offence'.
quote:This is being pursued in the ECHR by Idris Francis with the backing of the ABD (see www.righttosilence.org.uk and this old thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5117&f=10&h=0). However, in order to avoid (or delay) being prosecuted for failing to name the driver you have to inform the police and prosecutors that you are going to tag on to the ECHR case.
The result is that you could simply refuse to say who was driving the vehicle at the time the speed camera photographed it, citing the EC convention which does not allow the police to force the alleged driver to incriminate themselves.
quote:Is it not the case that the Company Secretary now has liability for any charges/points brought against a company car driver who the company fails to name?
In October 1999, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson had a speeding case thrown out of court, when the police couldn't prove it was actually Mr Ferguson driving the vehicle. The club claimed they'd 'failed to discover who was driving the vehicle', making it impossible for the authorities to successfully press charges.
It is true that on on December 5th 2000 the Privy Council reversed the Scottish High Court decision and allowed Mrs. Brown's self-incrimination to be used to convict her but it is worth noting that Mrs. Brown decided not to apply to the ECHR although advised by her lawyers that she could win there.
Despite the significant differences between Mrs. Brown's drink-driving case and speed camera law, the authorities have ever since quoted the Privy Council decision to argue that there is no right to silence defence in speed camera issues. However at least two subsequent cases in Europe and other legal opinions have cast considerable doubt on the Privy Council decision and as rightly pointed out this has yet to be resolved in the ECHR.
The appropriate time to invoke this argument would be when the case is being heard at the Magistrates Court – they would then be forced to adjourn to allow the appeal to Strasbourg. Worth a shout if you’ve got a few quid and conviction would mean a ban.
Must admit - not sure of the extent of a Company Sectretary's liability for a speeding employee - one would anticipate some form of corporate liability but, crucially, not attaching to one individual.
Despite the significant differences between Mrs. Brown's drink-driving case and speed camera law, the authorities have ever since quoted the Privy Council decision to argue that there is no right to silence defence in speed camera issues. However at least two subsequent cases in Europe and other legal opinions have cast considerable doubt on the Privy Council decision and as rightly pointed out this has yet to be resolved in the ECHR.
The appropriate time to invoke this argument would be when the case is being heard at the Magistrates Court – they would then be forced to adjourn to allow the appeal to Strasbourg. Worth a shout if you’ve got a few quid and conviction would mean a ban.
Must admit - not sure of the extent of a Company Sectretary's liability for a speeding employee - one would anticipate some form of corporate liability but, crucially, not attaching to one individual.
Chaps,
Dont get me wrong - there are a load of strange rules around. You are right, if it was OK earlier then you cant keep stopping to check if the plates are clean. I mean, you cant carry hay through bloomsbury arcade for christs sake!!!
I was merely pointing out that the legal situation is a little blurred at the moment and with the current crop of cases it is being sorted / tested now. There was never a major problem in the past as there wasnt any speeding cameras. Now there are cameras all over the place the legal situation needs to be 100% clarified....
Only then will we have a true and accurate picture of what we can / cant do in this circumstance.
Cheers and didnt wish to offend / anoy.
Paul
Dont get me wrong - there are a load of strange rules around. You are right, if it was OK earlier then you cant keep stopping to check if the plates are clean. I mean, you cant carry hay through bloomsbury arcade for christs sake!!!
I was merely pointing out that the legal situation is a little blurred at the moment and with the current crop of cases it is being sorted / tested now. There was never a major problem in the past as there wasnt any speeding cameras. Now there are cameras all over the place the legal situation needs to be 100% clarified....
Only then will we have a true and accurate picture of what we can / cant do in this circumstance.
Cheers and didnt wish to offend / anoy.
Paul
I was recently stopped on the M5 by a marked Traffic car. I was travelling at less than 70mph but was nevertheless pulled over on an extremely busy motorway on a day when there were 8omph winds and driving rain. I was informed that my number plate was dirty! I was told that a fixed penalty notice would be issued.The officer concerned said that he could not read my plate at all.He then asked me my registration number which I read from inside his car at a distance of about 20 feet.I asked him why he could not read it. He made no comment.I drive over 400 miles a week and my car is washed every week. As anyone knows the weather has been appalling for several weeks.During this particular trip I had been passed by vehicles displaying no lights at all, tailgated,etc. My life, and that of the officer concerned, were put at risk by his decision to stop me on that day, in those conditions.A letter is on its way to the appropriate Chief Constable.....
Regarding the company secretary being held responsible for Fixed penalties, I hope this may be wrong. I have heard that people have been held responsible for offences done by others using their car but only where the police have been unable to find the "true" offender. I don't think this is the case for a company. In the case of parking tickets liability is on the registered keeper, but this does not extend to the secretary or the director.
Would be interesting to have this clarified though.
In the past the law could do very little to company cars, especially where quite a few employees where involved, but they keep changing the laws, so...
Would be interesting to have this clarified though.
In the past the law could do very little to company cars, especially where quite a few employees where involved, but they keep changing the laws, so...
With so much debate going on about dirty number plates and that they might be construed as you deliberately hiding your number plate what if some-one were to have one of those number plates that could be flicked up out of site with the quick press of a button, say mounted on the handlebars. How could that be construed? Thoughts? Beats having a clean car and a dirty plate.
quote:
With so much debate going on about dirty number plates and that they might be construed as you deliberately hiding your number plate what if some-one were to have one of those number plates that could be flicked up out of site with the quick press of a button, say mounted on the handlebars. How could that be construed? Thoughts? Beats having a clean car and a dirty plate.
Much worse than not having a plate at all, or having it covered in dirt & then spray-laquered applied to stop it washing off. Not that I know anyone who'd do such a thing.
I assume that the old Black+silver plates don't photograph very well?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff