BBC: Police target driving 'loopholes'

[nuster100]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some driving offenses rely on the driver incriminating themselves.

Take gatso cameras, you have to say whether you were driving etc.

IMO this put the onus on the driver to prove his innocence. Thats not the way the law works in this country, the police have to prove guilt, not the other way round.

Just my 2 cents

Jay

[martine]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some driving offenses rely on the driver incriminating themselves.

Take gatso cameras, you have to say whether you were driving etc.

IMO this put the onus on the driver to prove his innocence. Thats not the way the law works in this country, the police have to prove guilt, not the other way round.

This has been debated before (and will again I'm sure) but personally I've no problem with it as it stands. The only people who object are surely looking for a loophole as they are probably guilty. There was a case a few months ago of someone objecting on this principle - he lost in court.

Some cameras of course take a facing photo which helps identify the driver in any case.

Perhaps I'm naive but I really can't see the problem in this case, of the driver being forced to identify...but then again I usually don't have much time for many of the 'personal freedom' arguments...(identity cards, road pricing etc).

[7db]

There are loads of offences where you are required to provide information which might be used by the prosecution to incriminate you - driving isn't that special.