18 ms·

In the UK I believe the first letter goes to the "keeper" of the vehicle, called a NIP (notice of intended prosecution). The keeper of the vehicle is required b

In the UK I believe the first letter goes to the "keeper" of the vehicle, called a NIP (notice of intended prosecution). The keeper of the vehicle is required by law to fill in the NIP (under pain of perjury) and return it telling the police who was driving. The police will then criminally prosecute the person on the form. I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here: http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-were-not-driver.html http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-we... It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.

DanBC 10y ago
...and people go to jail for lying about who was driving. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8501054/Chris-Huhne-denies-wifes-driving-penalty-points-claims.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/85...
rachbowyer 10y ago
Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If you don't, then you have committed an offence. Presumably this approach does not work in the US due to the 5th amendment. And from the article it looks like other approaches that are being tried in the US are also unconstitutional.
- tehwalrus 10y ago
  TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates. Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
  - ckinnan 10y ago
    The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
    - davidwihl 10y ago
      Precisely. The key short phrase is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
  - jakewins 10y ago
    It was indeed because of the British - the fifth amendment was meant to keep US courts from using the inquisitorial method, rather than the prosecutorial, triggered by the abuses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_U.S._Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_...
    - tehwalrus 10y ago
      Does the USA justice system use inquisitorial prosecution? From what I've heard about that kind of court in Germany, the USA is very far from that kind of non-adversarial proceeding.
      - jakewins 10y ago
        The 5th amendment specifically allows it for military trials, but for civilian trials, no, it's made impossible outside of cases where the defendant agrees to it by the 5th amendment. Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
        tehwalrus 10y ago
        But the police practice of collecting evidence (e.g. tricking people into giving confessions) seems completely at odds with their neutral investigator role inquisitorial justice.
        jakewins 10y ago
        The judicial branch is meant to be neutral judges - but police and prosecutors are not part of the judicial branch. In the case of prosecutors, their job is explicitly to not be neutral. However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
  - jaggederest 10y ago
    Well, the fifth element as a whole has a number of provisions. The popular clause against self-incrimination is but one of them. It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now) "The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-amendment/ http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
  - cobbzilla 10y ago
    here is great video explaining the importance of 5th amendment rights: https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?
- jakewins 10y ago
  I wonder how that works in the UK - the 5th amendment is just another version of the same law in England, triggered by the abuses at the same English court, Star Chamber. According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies." Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - Lukasa 10y ago
    That's not how the Westminster system works. Parliament has the right to legislate more or less as it pleases, and is not bound by any superior authority, including the courts. The courts in the U.K. cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so. (Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.) Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
    - Y_Y 10y ago
      This may not be quite the case, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Co... .
      - Lukasa 10y ago
        I Am Not A Legal Scholar, but: It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal. So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome! EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
- revelation 10y ago
  This is not a 5th amendment issue as much as not submitting your taxes is. You can do that and not be prosecuted under the original traffic offence but failing to keep track of who's driving is simply another offence.
gambiting 10y ago
I live in the UK, but never understood this. What if you really, genuinely don't know who was driving the car at the time? Can you give a list of people who could have been driving it, to the best of your knowledge? After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours?
- masklinn 10y ago
  > After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours? The police's assumption is that as the car's owner you are responsible for its use, and have committed any offense involving it.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    Well, then if you don't mind me saying so, it's a dumb assumption. If say....you have 4 children, all insured on your car, and all of them refuse using it at the time(or maybe they all say they have used it, and all have driven on the road in question, or maybe the case is now year old and no one remembers who was driving that day), then how could you possibly, in good faith, be hold liable for this?
    - darklajid 10y ago
      Your scenario seems a bit off. I imagine that if your kids did something stupid they should admit it - or they lose access to the car, period. 'A year old' case seems unlikely as well. I don't know about the UK laws, but over here most (all?) traffic violations expire after 3 month. There's no way to receive questions about a speeding ticket in the distant past..
      - gambiting 10y ago
        Ok, if the "year ago" scenario is far fetched, then I'm not even going to pretend I can remember when I was on this day a month ago,much less where my car was and who was driving it. Like I said, I am not required by law to keep a record of every single person using my car with the times they used it, so how can the law require me to produce said information? If me + 4 other people are insured on a vehicle, that means that possibly, it could be one out of 5 people driving it on a given day. I have no idea which one it was. What then?
masklinn 10y ago
Interestingly that can also be used the other way in places with "point system" licenses (assuming the driver's face is not visible or it was a backside camera), some people will pay their ticket but (after having arranged it) "rat on" someone else who'll get their points docked.
- jsmeaton 10y ago
  The photographs literally don't matter. As long as the form has a name on it, and the fine is paid, it's not like they're going to look at the photo and do a match against the identified driver.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    That's not the case in the UK where taking someone else's points is perjury and results in fines or jail time.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      And the purpose of points systems is to cap out the number of infractions[0] a driver can perform regardless of their wealth. If you can shift the points loss, they can not fulfil their purpose. [0] for infractions which are all short of an immediate license loss
    - jsmeaton 10y ago
      But do they verify photos against claims? I'm certain they don't here in Australia (at least not 100%), because .. others .. have done this very thing when they were younger.

DanBC 10y ago

...and people go to jail for lying about who was driving. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8501054/Chris-Huhne-denies-wifes-driving-penalty-points-claims.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/85...

rachbowyer 10y ago

Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If you don't, then you have committed an offence. Presumably this approach does not work in the US due to the 5th amendment. And from the article it looks like other approaches that are being tried in the US are also unconstitutional.

tehwalrus 10y ago
TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates. Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
- ckinnan 10y ago
  The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
  - davidwihl 10y ago
    Precisely. The key short phrase is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
- jakewins 10y ago
  It was indeed because of the British - the fifth amendment was meant to keep US courts from using the inquisitorial method, rather than the prosecutorial, triggered by the abuses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_U.S._Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_...
  - tehwalrus 10y ago
    Does the USA justice system use inquisitorial prosecution? From what I've heard about that kind of court in Germany, the USA is very far from that kind of non-adversarial proceeding.
    - jakewins 10y ago
      The 5th amendment specifically allows it for military trials, but for civilian trials, no, it's made impossible outside of cases where the defendant agrees to it by the 5th amendment. Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
      - tehwalrus 10y ago
        But the police practice of collecting evidence (e.g. tricking people into giving confessions) seems completely at odds with their neutral investigator role inquisitorial justice.
        jakewins 10y ago
        The judicial branch is meant to be neutral judges - but police and prosecutors are not part of the judicial branch. In the case of prosecutors, their job is explicitly to not be neutral. However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
- jaggederest 10y ago
  Well, the fifth element as a whole has a number of provisions. The popular clause against self-incrimination is but one of them. It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now) "The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-amendment/ http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
- cobbzilla 10y ago
  here is great video explaining the importance of 5th amendment rights: https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?
jakewins 10y ago
I wonder how that works in the UK - the 5th amendment is just another version of the same law in England, triggered by the abuses at the same English court, Star Chamber. According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies." Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- Lukasa 10y ago
  That's not how the Westminster system works. Parliament has the right to legislate more or less as it pleases, and is not bound by any superior authority, including the courts. The courts in the U.K. cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so. (Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.) Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
  - Y_Y 10y ago
    This may not be quite the case, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Co... .
    - Lukasa 10y ago
      I Am Not A Legal Scholar, but: It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal. So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome! EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
revelation 10y ago
This is not a 5th amendment issue as much as not submitting your taxes is. You can do that and not be prosecuted under the original traffic offence but failing to keep track of who's driving is simply another offence.

gambiting 10y ago

I live in the UK, but never understood this. What if you really, genuinely don't know who was driving the car at the time? Can you give a list of people who could have been driving it, to the best of your knowledge? After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours?

masklinn 10y ago
> After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours? The police's assumption is that as the car's owner you are responsible for its use, and have committed any offense involving it.
- gambiting 10y ago
  Well, then if you don't mind me saying so, it's a dumb assumption. If say....you have 4 children, all insured on your car, and all of them refuse using it at the time(or maybe they all say they have used it, and all have driven on the road in question, or maybe the case is now year old and no one remembers who was driving that day), then how could you possibly, in good faith, be hold liable for this?
  - darklajid 10y ago
    Your scenario seems a bit off. I imagine that if your kids did something stupid they should admit it - or they lose access to the car, period. 'A year old' case seems unlikely as well. I don't know about the UK laws, but over here most (all?) traffic violations expire after 3 month. There's no way to receive questions about a speeding ticket in the distant past..
    - gambiting 10y ago
      Ok, if the "year ago" scenario is far fetched, then I'm not even going to pretend I can remember when I was on this day a month ago,much less where my car was and who was driving it. Like I said, I am not required by law to keep a record of every single person using my car with the times they used it, so how can the law require me to produce said information? If me + 4 other people are insured on a vehicle, that means that possibly, it could be one out of 5 people driving it on a given day. I have no idea which one it was. What then?

masklinn 10y ago

Interestingly that can also be used the other way in places with "point system" licenses (assuming the driver's face is not visible or it was a backside camera), some people will pay their ticket but (after having arranged it) "rat on" someone else who'll get their points docked.

jsmeaton 10y ago
The photographs literally don't matter. As long as the form has a name on it, and the fine is paid, it's not like they're going to look at the photo and do a match against the identified driver.
- DanBC 10y ago
  That's not the case in the UK where taking someone else's points is perjury and results in fines or jail time.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    And the purpose of points systems is to cap out the number of infractions[0] a driver can perform regardless of their wealth. If you can shift the points loss, they can not fulfil their purpose. [0] for infractions which are all short of an immediate license loss
  - jsmeaton 10y ago
    But do they verify photos against claims? I'm certain they don't here in Australia (at least not 100%), because .. others .. have done this very thing when they were younger.