Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[UK] CCTV used for traffic infringements

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Chef, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. I'm not sure if this has been covered before, I don't have the time or inclination to read all of the conspiracy threads. But i just stumbled across this while I was tooling around the net and found it interesting.


    http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article739672.ece


     
     Top
  2. BOTH are used in the enforcement of relevant laws. A customs officer could, conceivably, assist in the arrest of a bank robber, for example. The same principle is being applied to electronic policing.

    I would question how good an identification a CCTV camera could make of a driver INSIDE a car, however, and the driver could always claim that although it's his number plate and vehicle, he wasn't driving it at the time....
     
     Top

  3. They don't need to identify the driver in the vehicle. They just issue the fine to the registered owner then the owner needs to run around like a headless twat proving their innocence.

    It won't be long before we as the driver will be registered and not the vehicle.
    We'll all have a key that starts the car that will store all of our info including our rego hardcoded onto this key. As soon as it is placed in the "ignition" it will display our rego on the "rego plates"
     
     Top
  4. You mean we'll all have a chip in our forehead or right hand...
    :shock:
    :shock: :evil:
    and the serial numbers on the chips will all add up to 666 :LOL:
     
     Top
  5. There's the irony Hornet, the cameras were originally installed to catch muggers and burglars and protect the general populace. But they're really crap at picking up people's i.d. in the dark. What they are good at is picking up number plates, so now they are being used on the people they are supposed to protect.

    Which is what sh*ts me to tears, so much for innocent until proven guilty.
    If i won an American lottery and was US300,000,000 richer, the first thing i would do is run the Burnley tunnel over the posted limit. Then wait with eager anticipation for all the tickets to role in, just so i could take them to court and tell them to prove it was me. Hours of fun to be had there.
     
     Top
  6. Maybe you could have fun with a decent lawyer, but regular joes just get
    told by the judge "we don't have to prove it was you, you have to prove
    it wasn't you, stop wasting our time" and the charge is proven in
    about 2 minutes.
     
     Top
  7. To which any decent lawyer would respond:

    "Was the driver of the vehicle clearly identifiable as the defendent? What evidence is there to suggest that the registration plates in question are not forgeries?"

    Unless you admit to it, they can't convict you unless the evidence is proven to be solid. Yes - a magistrate might just convict you anyway, but without solid incontravertible and incorruptible evidence that it was you and your vehicle, would allow room for appeal to be taken to a higher court where it moves away from a simple right/wrong summary jurisdiction as applies to the magistrates courts to a more involved matter of law.

    I'd say that if the matter was pursued vigorously, and unless the police could positively prove that you absolutely had to answer for the alleged offense through positive identification, then they'd likely just drop the charge lest a precedent be set that registration plates are no longer considered as incorruptible evidence linking a vehicle to an owner.

    ie. the "owner onus" rule only applies if you can prove that the alleged owner of the vehicle is in fact the vehicle that committed the offence. Without positive identification of the driver/owner, that becomes a very real legal matter for consideration, and can, in fact, call into question the whole system of summary offences based upon registration plate identification alone.

    Of course, if the matter was pushed, that could then lead to the introduction of electronic tagging of vehicles, but even that could be subverted.

    The system, as it stands today, really does rely on owners admitting fault or voluntarily dobbing someone in when there's no positive identification of the driver.

    All it takes is to stand in court and say "That wasn't my vehicle in the picture. Prove to me that it was, otherwise I have no case to answer here. When you can prove it, then I will co-operate."
     
     Top
  8. That's an interesting take on it, with a few things I hadn't thought of
    before. I wonder if it would work in a court? From what I've heard,
    the judges usually assume that the plates are correct unless the defendant
    can show they were not in the area at the time; but I haven't been
    following the cases religiously or anything and I'm not a lawyer.
    Let's hope that none of us have to try it out...
     
     Top
  9. hornet600 wrote:
    I would question how good an identification a CCTV camera could make of a driver INSIDE a car, however, and the driver could always claim that although it's his number plate and vehicle, he wasn't driving it at the time....


    There's the irony Hornet, the cameras were originally installed to catch muggers and burglars and protect the general populace. But they're really crap at picking up people's i.d. in the dark. What they are good at is picking up number plates, so now they are being used on the people they are supposed to protect.


    I take your point, chef, but in the terms of the original post, if the car in question is breaking the law, then the driver is a member of 'them' not a member of 'us', if you get my drift.....
     
     Top
  10. I sure do, which is where i take umbrage. One of the examples cited in the article was a driver who momentarily doubled parked at 8:00pm, and was pinged. It's quite possible it was out front of his own house, or a friends he was visiting, who knows? Just guessing for the sake of argument.
    But I'll bet a penny to a pound when the council was installing the cameras they sold it to the residents as being in their best interests. I can't imagine them saying they were installing them to stamp out the scourge of double parkers.
    I wonder how long you can betray a populations trust before they eventually turn on you? The poms don't like having the mickey taken out of them, they already firebomb their speed cameras. :applause:

    For the amount of CCTV cameras we have in high crime locations, such as train stations, taxis, or King St, compared to how many crooks are caught by these, makes you wonder if it isn't just a big waste of money.
    Unless of course you figure out you can use them to fine the average Joe, going about his average business, then it's a Cash Cow bonanza.

    Without wanting to sound like Michael Moore (or worse) The only thing CCTV is good for is providing current affair programs with footage of crime. It doesn't stop it though.
     
     Top
  11. sounds like it's time to swap plates with your neighbours and blame it on the local kids if you ever get caught. Then, you can say the plates are forged as you don't own an XYZ.
     
     Top