As I'm a roll (blogging that is, I certainly can't apply that term to my journeys), I'd like to share something I just fired off to Jeremy Vine of Radio 2, having ached to contribute to a debate on speed cameras yesterday whilst trapped in my car.
It was a potetially interesting debate, involving points of law and frnakly bigger issues of precedent, and like usual I was amazed at the selection of contributors, designed more to stir things up than allow reasoned discourse. I was also suprised that certain key issues were not raised (and totally unsuprised, if frustarted, at what unnecessaily emotive ones were allowed to be introduced).
Let's make one thing clear. Speeding to excess is not safe. It is also illegal. It shoudl not be done. However, as this reply (typically verbose, and hence unlikley to be featured) shows, in addition to my views on rational legislation, the spirit of justice and a resonabel expecation of what policing should be about, there is a bigger picture to consider, and that is where the burden of proof lies, or should do. And in case you are wondering what the heck this has to do with the environement, well, not a lot. Until you get to a para near the end:):
"I was driving yesterday when you broadcast the segment about self-incriminating, potentially human rights-breaching, heavy-handed bureaucratic fascism in action.
It's not often I find myself on the side of human rights lawyers, but in this case I wish I could have sped up to find a layby and pitch in.
But as you offered a follow-up beyond the speeding issue, here's my two cents (first on this, second on the broader one):
There is a principle at stake here, and I'm surprised it was not mentioned (or I missed it).
That is: 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I may be misquoting as it was a while ago, but think it was Lord Denning who long ago said he was interested in justice, not the law.
Well, we've sped way past the spirit of the law, and now the letter is where we depressingly now find ourselves, from both sides:
WEDNESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 22.30 BST - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER
Speed cameras
A great aid to road safety or an unfair tax on those honest enough to pay the fines without a fight?
As two motorists go to Strasbourg to protect their privacy from snooping speed cameras, the UK's top traffic policeman has just launched a crackdown on motorists who use legal loopholes to avoid convictions for speeding. But we can reveal that police have been using their own loophole to cancel tickets for their officers who have been caught speeding.
Those who sprang to the cameras' defence, especially those with a vested interest in the revenues, seem to want it all one way.
But what worries me more is that fact that this all smacks of 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent'. The authorities are simply too lazy, mean or inept to police dangerous driving in a fair manner, and are relying on the catch-all of dumb robots to do the job of getting the truly guilty in with a much wider net, with the bonus of a nice little earner of the fine income.
I have not yet had a speeding ticket, but I'm waiting for the day I do. And dreading that I have an accident because my eye is too often on the speedo rather on driving the road safely.
However, I have had two motoring 'offence' notices, both of which were subsequently quashed, but only because I took the issue as far as it would go.
And yes, I was subjected to these aggressive notices, along with escalating threats of increased fines and eventually court proceedings, at every stage feeling I was dealing with a computer. And why not? Because having been vindicated, all that happened was the original, invalid fines were cancelled. I was put through the hoops and ever-greater penalties for simply questioning, yet the authorities had no such disincentive in the proceedings.
This is official extortion. Argue and the price goes up. Argue some more and we drag you to court. But if they are wrong, all bets are off.
When I see a speed camera where my kids are walking back from school (and yes, make it 20mph), and not on the only clear stretch of a remote A road where you can get safely past a tractor, and the damn thing has the speed limit posted on it (as opposed to a preceding few miles' worth of hundreds of bits of useless 'road furniture'), I'll call them safety cameras. If they are policed properly. And if booked I'll take my medicine, and rue the day that such things as context, mitigation and proof supported by official testimony and expert witnesses are no longer part of the legal process.
If someone is proven driving illegally and dangerously, throw the full legal book at them. Fines. Jail. No more licence. I'll support that 100%. But not using a robot backed with bureaucratic fascism to generate income from the easy mark of someone who has paid for their tax and insurance, and may have very good reason for thinking they were not at fault or simply not know who was driving or how their car was so labeled (which is what policemen are for, to stop and catch them - no wonder we no longer hear 'it's a fair cop').
And to those who use the 'what if it was your kid' for bending this aspect of criminal justice to suit, wait 'til there's a knock on your door because a facial recognition system has you or them pegged as a mugger, or your bin has the wrong rubbish in it. Fine if it's up to the system to prove it was you first: not so fine (or actually ever-increasing fines) if it's incumbent upon you to prove first that you have no association with the crime or a good explanation. Or drop a family member in it instead.
I'd be glad for someone to explain the difference with such cases and the one above.
First they booked the [alleged] speeders, then they came for...
It's an interesting state, sorry, country, Britain has become. And a fine legacy for the leadership who have brought us here.
Addendum:
I have awoken next morning to posting this to the following in my in-box from the Telegraph:
'The case for speed cameras destroyed in a flash"
While this will doubtless intensify debate, it does broadly add weight to my core beliefs.
However, I personally believe that we should have the cameras, only that they should be moved to urban situations where pedestarisans are at danger. At best they will act to cause even the most dangerous to check their speed, and at worst provide some additional ammunition to trace, track and build cases aginst consistnetly offending vehicles. Meaning more police effort: 'Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman, called for greater use of police patrol cars, rather than cameras, to deal with the menace of "rogue drivers".'
This would contribute to the cause of safety. If the human rights case proves successful, it will mean no further, or at least much reduced, revenues. It will be interesting to see whether the authorities maintain their enthusiasm for our safety if there is no money it.
No comments:
Post a Comment