Interesting. Here, with automated cameras, the letter also goes to the registered keeper of the car. There used to be a way out where you could say I don’t remember who was driving, but you’d both have to be on the insurance for it to work. Now I think your have to name the driver and can’t not name them, or something along those lines. From memory, somebody took it to court saying you shouldn’t be compelled to incriminate yourself but think they lost.
Most cameras now though are forward facing so take a photo of the driver too. You can’t get out of that!
To be fair, the owner should know who’s driving at that time and they need to be on the insurance. Maybe this is different here because every driver is named on the insurance for each car. Am I right in thinking it’s different there? If you named someone who wasn’t insured on your car, you’re letting someone drive your car without insurance which is also an offence. You have to pay for each person so it’s not like you’re going to have multiple random drivers.
Most cameras now though are forward facing so take a photo of the driver too. You can’t get out of that!
I don’t recall if her ticket(s) showed the front, but I think it would still be a challenge for the courts to prove the ID of the driver.
To be fair, the owner should know who’s driving at that time and they need to be on the insurance.
For sure. This still applies.
But what I’m saying is that let’s say you have a single family car for you, your spouse, and two teenagers. If anyone in your family is driving that car and gets an automated speeding ticket, you (the owner of the car) would get the ticket. There’s no deterrent effect for the actual driver.
In this sense, being pulled over by an actual police officer is likely to have more of an impact than these cameras. However, good luck generating nearly a fraction of the revenue using street cops. That’s where automated cameras really shine.
Interesting. Here, with automated cameras, the letter also goes to the registered keeper of the car. There used to be a way out where you could say I don’t remember who was driving, but you’d both have to be on the insurance for it to work. Now I think your have to name the driver and can’t not name them, or something along those lines. From memory, somebody took it to court saying you shouldn’t be compelled to incriminate yourself but think they lost.
Most cameras now though are forward facing so take a photo of the driver too. You can’t get out of that!
To be fair, the owner should know who’s driving at that time and they need to be on the insurance. Maybe this is different here because every driver is named on the insurance for each car. Am I right in thinking it’s different there? If you named someone who wasn’t insured on your car, you’re letting someone drive your car without insurance which is also an offence. You have to pay for each person so it’s not like you’re going to have multiple random drivers.
I don’t recall if her ticket(s) showed the front, but I think it would still be a challenge for the courts to prove the ID of the driver.
For sure. This still applies.
But what I’m saying is that let’s say you have a single family car for you, your spouse, and two teenagers. If anyone in your family is driving that car and gets an automated speeding ticket, you (the owner of the car) would get the ticket. There’s no deterrent effect for the actual driver.
In this sense, being pulled over by an actual police officer is likely to have more of an impact than these cameras. However, good luck generating nearly a fraction of the revenue using street cops. That’s where automated cameras really shine.