One way to avoid a speeding ticket

[anonymous-user]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48431612

Not sure it is of any Bibilical significance but a lucky driver.

[speedking31]

The bird could be flying faster than the car so casting doubt on the recorded speed anyway.

[donkmeister]

Interesting that in Germany they can't serve a notice to identify the driver even when the vehicle reg is clear... I've heard of so many friends of friends of the milkman's neighbour stories of people being stopped for unpaid fines on subsequent visits.

[EU_Foreigner]

In Germany they don't have that twisted law where you have to self incriminate, they have to get the evidence (i.e. unlike the UK where you have to prove your innocence). Just like they don't accept dashcam footage either as evidence handed in by members of the public.

[Cat]

EU_Foreigner said:

In Germany they don't have that twisted law where you have to self incriminate, they have to get the evidence (i.e. unlike the UK where you have to prove your innocence).

You don't have to prove your innocence in the UK, you have to name the driver of the vehicle at particular time and place. The prosecution then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed an offence.

Cat

[Jules360]

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

In Germany they don't have that twisted law where you have to self incriminate, they have to get the evidence (i.e. unlike the UK where you have to prove your innocence).

You don't have to prove your innocence in the UK, you have to name the driver of the vehicle at particular time and place. The prosecution then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed an offence.

Cat

What happens if you cannot remember who was driving ?

[Cat]

Jules360 said:

What happens if you cannot remember who was driving ?

If you are the keeper and show you didn't know and couldnt with reasonable diligence ascertain who the driver of the vehicle was - nothing will happen.

If you are someone other than the keeper and don't remember who was driving then provided you give any information you do have which might lead to the identity of the driver - again nothing will happen.

Cat

[Who me ?]

Cat said:

You don't have to prove your innocence in the UK, you have to name the driver of the vehicle at particular time and place. The prosecution then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed an offence.

Cat

Leaving the way open for "professional witnesses" to trawl sites like this ( remember he who was Pitmansbots) looking to earn from incriminating someone in court on some ill placed remark on an internet forum.

[InitialDave]

Someone in the CPS is probably preemtively Googling "how to charge bird with PCoJ".

[tony wright]

Thinking back, wasn’t there a thread where a UK guy driving a RHD car visited the Ring with a large Muppet doll. In between the track driving he was said to be driving round the local area setting off speed cameras, with the muppet puppet fastened to a toy steering wheel on the left hand side of the dash, he was then ducking down when he set off the camera.

[EU_Foreigner]

Cat said:

You don't have to prove your innocence in the UK, you have to name the driver of the vehicle at particular time and place. The prosecution then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed an offence.

Cat

The default position if you don't defend yourself of a traffic offence in the UK is that you are guilty, either of not naming the driver or of the offence itself. In my book that means you have to prove your innocence.

In Germany, you don't have to do anything as the default position is that you are innocent unless proven guilty by the authorities by means of an identifying picture. No picture, or stopped in case of a mobile trap, no guilt.

[Starfighter]

Vehicle ownership and driving both carry responsibilities. The RK is required to know who is driving and identify that person under S172. The presumption is still for innocence and the prosecution need to prove the offence and the driver. The camera shows the location, speed and registration. S172 provides the name of the driver. If you want to challenge the accusation then feel free and let the magistrate review all the evidence.

If you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game.

[Cat]

EU_Foreigner said:

The default position if you don't defend yourself of a traffic offence in the UK is that you are guilty, either of not naming the driver or of the offence itself. In my book that means you have to prove your innocence.

The default position for any offence where you don't defend yourself, and the prosecution have sufficient evidence, is you will be found guilty. Traffic offences are no different to any others in this respect.

EU_Foreigner said:

In Germany, you don't have to do anything as the default position is that you are innocent unless proven guilty by the authorities by means of an identifying picture. No picture, or stopped in case of a mobile trap, no guilt.

In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty, just like in a Germany. Responding to a 172 request is not an admission of guilt nor does it mean you will be found guilty.

Cat

[Dave Hedgehog]

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

In Germany they don't have that twisted law where you have to self incriminate, they have to get the evidence (i.e. unlike the UK where you have to prove your innocence).

You don't have to prove your innocence in the UK, you have to name the driver of the vehicle at particular time and place. The prosecution then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed an offence.

Cat

which results in a 99.9999999999% conviction rate so to any sensible person it is self incrimination, its just another demonstration of a corruption in our legal system

[Cat]

Dave Hedgehog said:

which results in a 99.9999999999% conviction rate so to any sensible person it is self incrimination, its just another demonstration of a corruption in our legal system

No it doesn't, plenty of people aren't convicted after responding to a 172 request.

Cat

[EU_Foreigner]

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

The default position if you don't defend yourself of a traffic offence in the UK is that you are guilty, either of not naming the driver or of the offence itself. In my book that means you have to prove your innocence.

The default position for any offence where you don't defend yourself, and the prosecution have sufficient evidence, is you will be found guilty. Traffic offences are no different to any others in this respect.

EU_Foreigner said:

In Germany, you don't have to do anything as the default position is that you are innocent unless proven guilty by the authorities by means of an identifying picture. No picture, or stopped in case of a mobile trap, no guilt.

In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty, just like in a Germany. Responding to a 172 request is not an admission of guilt nor does it mean you will be found guilty.

Cat

Traffic offences are different, if the RK says "no comment" at all stages, and there no evidence presented that the RK is the driver by the proseuction (as they only have a picture of a number plate, not of you) so you are convicted without exception and receive an MS90. That is guilty until proven innocence, not sure how it can be interpreted any different as the only evidence the prosecution will present is your number plate, but nothing relating to you.

It is very different from a burglar who says the same "no comment" and if the prosecution cannot offer DNA / pictures etc etc, the default position there is that you are innocent.

On your last point the S172, in Germany, the prosecution has to prove it was you who was driving, that is very different from here where they don't do that. If you respond with "no comment|" - innocent until proven remember, they won't offer any further evidence but still convict you.

[Cat]

EU_Foreigner said:

Traffic offences are different, if the RK says "no comment" at all stages, and there no evidence presented that the RK is the driver by the proseuction (as they only have a picture of a number plate, not of you) so you are convicted without exception and receive an MS90. That is guilty until proven innocence, not sure how it can be interpreted any different as the only evidence the prosecution will present is your number plate, but nothing relating to you.

You are taking 2 seperate offences and conflating them into one. The person who says "no comment" is convicted of failing to name the driver not of the original motoring offence. If the person complies with the 172 request and names the driver then it not a certainty that there will be a conviction in respect of that original offence therefore there is no presumption of guilt.

EU_Foreigner said:

On your last point the S172, in Germany, the prosecution has to prove it was you who was driving, that is very different from here where they don't do that.

How do the Germans deal with, for example, a hit and run RTC? Is it the case that if there are no witnesses who can ID the driver and no photographs then the keeper of the vehicle can just say nothing and get away with it?

Cat

[EU_Foreigner]

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Traffic offences are different, if the RK says "no comment" at all stages, and there no evidence presented that the RK is the driver by the proseuction (as they only have a picture of a number plate, not of you) so you are convicted without exception and receive an MS90. That is guilty until proven innocence, not sure how it can be interpreted any different as the only evidence the prosecution will present is your number plate, but nothing relating to you.

You are taking 2 seperate offences and conflating them into one. The person who says "no comment" is convicted of failing to name the driver not of the original motoring offence. If the person complies with the 172 request and names the driver then it not a certainty that there will be a conviction in respect of that original offence therefore there is no presumption of guilt.

[
But the starting point is a single offence, say for example speeding as was in this example. The UK makes it two offences, i.e. one failure to name the driver and the speeding offence itself and if you use "no comment", then you get convicted of the S172 offence (offence 1 our of the potential 2) so you are guilty of something even though the prosecution does not prove anything at all. My point is still valid, if there is no evidence that the RK was speeding, and the RK does not defend their innocence, you will be convicted.

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

On your last point the S172, in Germany, the prosecution has to prove it was you who was driving, that is very different from here where they don't do that.

How do the Germans deal with, for example, a hit and run RTC? Is it the case that if there are no witnesses who can ID the driver and no photographs then the keeper of the vehicle can just say nothing and get away with it?

Cat

The above approach is only when dealing with (automated) speeding offences which require a picture to identify the driver. Nothing else, so RTC etc is completely different.

[Cat]

EU_Foreigner said:

My point is still valid, if there is no evidence that the RK was speeding, and the RK does not defend their innocence, you will be convicted.

Your point isn't valid - just because the keeper is required to name the driver doesn't mean there is a presumption of guilt against that person, the prosecution still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the speeding offence was committed. You are making out that as soon as a 172 notice is sent to the RK someone is going to be convicted of an offence, that is simply not the case.

EU_Foreigner said:

The above approach is only when dealing with (automated) speeding offences which require a picture to identify the driver. Nothing else, so RTC etc is completely different.

So how do they deal with offences other than speeding?

Cat