The following from the late Lord Bingham quoted in the linked judgment, goes to the heart of this:-
[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.
Top Spanish judge Javier Borrego Borrego (so good they named him twice) supported the ruling but submitted an individual concurring opinion which began:-
Although I too voted against finding a violation, I regret that I am unable to subscribe to the approach and reasoning adopted by the majority in this judgment.
And then includes this nugget:
... The Court, in paragraph 57, accepts the wise reasoning of Lord Bingham, a member of the Privy Council. I would point out that, according to that opinion, “[a]ll who own or drive motor cars know ...”. If indeed, “[a]ll ... know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime ...”, we must ask: why spend twelve pages trying to explain what everyone already knows?
Making simple things complicated is tantamount to choosing a path which is not only wrong but dangerous, ...
My point here is that the requirement to identify the driver is virtually the only element of a specific regulatory regime for drivers in the UK ie apart from a few things like yellow line parking, contested cases still call for all the king's horses and all the king's men, which means we have reached a point where much enforcement of traffic law has collapsed. (A point I've been making for ages and which the HMI has got round to recognising.)
(The link to the ECHR judgment is courtesy of snibgo, who not only posted about it, but used a link which still works.)