Bmblbzzz wrote:Why fine the keepers, when tracking would make it possible to fine the drivers, which would be more of a deterrent and fairer?
Presumably because Keepers are clean and easy to identify, whereas drivers means much more cost, debate and uncertainty.
...and it takes identity fraud out of the equation.
Hardly!
Explain how holding the keeper to account is susceptible to identity fraud please, because I'm obviously missing something, given how emphatic your post appears.
landsurfer wrote: I do believe there has been a test case on this matter with the Man in the Curley Whig .... And the driver doing the warning was the winner ....Drivers 1 ... Pointless Police 0 Feel free to knock me down on this one ....
Reference?
Read my signature .... feel free to provide the appropriate references ...
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
Bonefishblues wrote:Presumably because Keepers are clean and easy to identify, whereas drivers means much more cost, debate and uncertainty.
...and it takes identity fraud out of the equation.
Hardly!
Explain how holding the keeper to account is susceptible to identity fraud please, because I'm obviously missing something, given how emphatic your post appears.
You are identifying the owner of the car, who may not be the driver. If that satisfies your sense of justice, it doesn't satisfy mine. Think of the abusive husbands who will let their wives take the blame.
landsurfer wrote: I do believe there has been a test case on this matter with the Man in the Curley Whig .... And the driver doing the warning was the winner ....Drivers 1 ... Pointless Police 0 Feel free to knock me down on this one ....
Reference?
Read my signature .... feel free to provide the appropriate references ...
That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Consider yourself knocked down.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Explain how holding the keeper to account is susceptible to identity fraud please, because I'm obviously missing something, given how emphatic your post appears.
You are identifying the owner of the car, who may not be the driver. If that satisfies your sense of justice, it doesn't satisfy mine. Think of the abusive husbands who will let their wives take the blame.
That's perverting the course of justice and we know that you do time for that. Individuals will always weigh that up.
I guess we all need personal identification tags that will start a car in our names... until someone else uses it, of course - unless it's permanently attached to us (let's call it tagged, perhaps?) or even embedded, maybe.
I think we are meandering towards suggesting a facial recognition system here. The owner of the face behind the steering wheel takes the blame. That fits my sense of justice. There is a car to which I have access, and two other family members have access to it. Fair play operates in our family so the one wot dunnit would take the rap, but not all families work that way.
Bonefishblues wrote:Presumably because Keepers are clean and easy to identify, whereas drivers means much more cost, debate and uncertainty.
...and it takes identity fraud out of the equation.
Hardly!
Explain how holding the keeper to account is susceptible to identity fraud please, because I'm obviously missing something, given how emphatic your post appears.
The points raised by pwa relate to fairness and justice, and are also important. I'll address the point about identity fraud. It's quite simple: identity fraud can easily happen by registering a vehicle in a false name. The most common way is probably to not register a change of keeper. Other ways would be to give a false name and/or address, clone the plates, use stolen ones or simply put false (made up) ones on, and various other ways. Estimates of vehicles improperly registered are usually around 10% for the UK.
Explain how holding the keeper to account is susceptible to identity fraud please, because I'm obviously missing something, given how emphatic your post appears.
The points raised by pwa relate to fairness and justice, and are also important. I'll address the point about identity fraud. It's quite simple: identity fraud can easily happen by registering a vehicle in a false name. The most common way is probably to not register a change of keeper. Other ways would be to give a false name and/or address, clone the plates, use stolen ones or simply put false (made up) ones on, and various other ways. Estimates of vehicles improperly registered are usually around 10% for the UK.
That's an endemic criminal issue - as you are (perhaps not?) aware, I was referencing the issue of 'trading' points/misdeclaring the driver a la Peterborough MPs, Liberal Politicians et al. That at least is cut out of the equation, as is much cost.
Your proposal being?
Last edited by Bonefishblues on 2 Jul 2019, 8:25am, edited 1 time in total.
In our local rag I have noticed that where a vehicle is caught speeding, if no driver is identified then the owner is prosecuted. Typically I notice that owners who acknowledge the culprit the fines and points are less for the offender then those who refuse to define the offender. Owners not owning up to who was driving are hit and 6 points and a heavy fine of some £600+ is levied, where as an honest driver who holds their hands up gets a way a bit lighter with 3 points and halve the fine.
Perverting the course of justice adds to the offence, in these cases I suspect there are other motives involved. Such as a banned driver, no licence, too many points already or even a new driver who would loose there licence. Though the above won't stop some from continuing to drive.
There are 3 or 4 hotspots where drivers are regularly caught, amongst some the risk seems not great enough to try and avoid.
