Roadtrafficlaw

VASCAR- The Latest News

2009-02-08T14:49:00.003Z

Martin Williams of The Glasgow Herald ran this story last week.

They are the speed detectors that police in the UK have been using in some cases for 30 years.

Now their reliability is being questioned after the professional voice of police leadership in Scotland advised forces to stop using the Vascar (Vehicle Average Speed Computer and Recorder), Police Pilot and Provida speed scanners while a "potential issue" is resolved.

Strathclyde Police has banned their use following a warning from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that there was a particular concern about their use alongside the emergency services' Airwave digital communications system

It is also understood that there is disquiet about the effect of radio waves from mobile phones, pagers, and radio and TV transmitters, CB radios and amateur radios.

It has raised the question of the validity of a horde of speeding convictions.

Speed was said to be a factor in 29% of the 3000 road deaths that occurred on Britain's roads in the same year.

Graham Walker, a Glasgow- based lawyer who specialises in fighting road traffic cases, said: "This development would give us a lot of ammunition. The first thing we would do in fighting these cases is to instruct experts to look at these machines and give evidence on why they cannot be relied upon.

"With every client where I have a case pending, we will now investigate and look at the whole issue of interference and ask for disclosure from the police and the Crown to find out what information they have about reliability."

The Vascar and Police Pilot are in-car speed detection devices. They can either be used to measure time taken over a pre-determined distance or while following a vehicle on the road.

Vascar units were first fitted to police vehicles as early as the mid-1970s and are among the most popular "weapons of choice" for catching speeders.

The Provida is an in-car speed detector linked to a video camera, which is a familiar site on reality police TV programmes such as Police Camera Action.

For all three detection systems, police officers must trigger switches that start and stop the timing devices. Device error, often blamed on the officer using a unit, is often brought up as a defence when motorists challenge charges.

Experts believe that, because of the known inaccuracies attributable to the devices, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) - not the Home Office - approved the units to measure speeds in England and Wales.

Acpo's own Traffic Committee Enforcement Technology National Guidance Manual accepts it is "impossible to obtain complete immunity from radio interference" when using typical speed radars.

"The best protection is the use of the meter in the hands of a trained and certified operator," it says. "Interference effects will only occur when the radar meter is close to the transmitter or the transmitter is very powerful.

"It is not possible to lay down a strict criteria for safe operating distances from transmitters."

It advises that police radio transmitters must not be used at the moment a vehicle's speed is measured.

One speed detector expert said the issue with commonly used devices was that they did not have Electro Magnetic Compatibility certification, meaning it is possible that many devices that produce radio waves, such as mobile phones, pagers, amateur radio and TV and radio transmitters, may interfere with them.
The latest on this story ifs that ACPO issued a further memo the day after their first warning memo to the effect that the VASCAR is fine when used in accordance with guideline. I am still concerned in that the guidelines referred to were written BEFORE the introduction of the Airwave radio communication device.
We have take the exceptional step of writing to the police and the Procurator Fiscal in relation to each VASCAR case we have to ensure that nothing is covered up here.
We will test the equipment where possible and do all we can to get to the truth about the reliability of this device.

Roadtrafficlaw.com Solicitors Endorse the Alcosense

2009-01-20T12:44:00.005Z

AlcoSense™ -The Morning After Solution

Better Safe Than Sorry!

We have never before endorsed a product of any kind through this law firm or on our website however we believe that the AlcoSense™device is the type of device that should be supported and used wherever there is a concern that you may be over the drink drive limit.

This year we have received more instructions than ever before that relate to situations where drivers have underestimated the level of alcohol that is still in their system the day after they have been drinking. We believe there should be a reliable device on the market to help people decide whether it is safe for them to drive or not.

DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE.

It is no legal defence to say that you did not know or suspect that you were still over the limit. It is therefore important to be certain. No machine is infallible, even the police intoximeter, but we reckon the AlcoSense™ is the best on the market.

Do not use this device, or anything similar as a method of checking your alcohol level as you consume alcohol over the course of an evening, etc. Recent mouth alcohol readings can cause inaccuracies in the readings from intoximeters.

However we do consider that this device could play a very significant role in reducing drink driving, by those drivers who find themselves behind the wheel of their car, the morning after consuming alcohol.

Why did we choose AlcoSense™?

Because, unlike many other manufacturers they are actively campaigning to have some kind of legislation or independent body assess ALL such devices on the market and to publish results about how effective they are. Some devices, are in our view useless or even dangerous as they are so far from accurate.

If you drank 4 pints or 3 large glasses of wine during a night out it could take as long as 12 hours for the alcohol to leave your system. If you stopped drinking at midnight you could still be over the drink drive limit at 10am. You can’t tell when you’re OK to drive again, but AlcoSense™ can.

AlcoSense™ is a pocket sized alcohol breathalyser, designed and developed specifically for the UK market. No larger than a mobile phone, it’s quick and easy to use at anytime, anywhere. Within seconds it will give you an accurate reading of your level of intoxication and will even warn you when you are near or over the UK drink drive limit.

Their quality standard and commitment to road safety is second to none which is why Sir Stirling Moss OBE and Brake (organisers of Road Safety Week) already work with them and support their product.

If you wish to purchase an AlcoSense™ just follow the link below and place your order for an Alcosense device and the profit we receive will be sent to MacMillan Cancer Support.

ALCOSENSE

(All profits we derive from the sale of these devices will be donated to MacMillan Cancer Support)

MORE NEWS ITEMS

De Criminalise Speeding Now!

2008-09-22T17:21:00.003+01:00

Speeding in Scotland is a contentious issue with hot debate and opinion raging in the tabloids on an almost daily basis.
I was recently contacted by a production team at the BBC who are about to embark on the production of a 6 part series about the roads in GB and the more recent impact of speed cameras and the "Big Brother" State that we now live in. Some interesting questions were raised regarding the whole issue of how speed violations are prosecuted in Scotland and whether we could learn anything from our European neighbours regarding same.

The clear majority of those who leave messages on our website, about speeding in Scotland or who ask a lawyer about speed cameras think that speed cameras were really hitting the wrong people. This is something that I have been banging on about for years. Do we want a society where a large section is criminalised (Criminal record) just because they drift through a GATSO speed trap or drive past the dreaded "Talivan" on their way home from a long stressful day?

This is crazy, we end up having decent working people getting hammered with points, insurance hikes and even more importantly a criminal record- that they have to declare on all their disclosure forms. I had one distressed client call me (On our FREE helpline) recently to clarify whether she would have to disclose that she had a criminal record as she had just been convicted of 41mph in a 30mph zone. The answer was YES! Her reaction was genuine distress and upset together with the resolution that she would no longer help out at her kids school because she couldn't bare to fill in the disclosure form and admit that she now had a criminal record. No matter how much it was explained that "No one really regarded this as a criminal record, in the real world. She was resolute that she would try and keep her, "little secret" hidden!) If she had chosen to accept the fixed penalty she could have quietly accepted the points and the fine and skulked off to a corner but she believed that the camera was wrong and ultimately was punished for having the audacity to challenge the ticket by way of a trial.If you have a question about your own case please go online and use our FREE ask a lawyer form.

Here we have a decent member of our society, doing her bit to make her local school a better place for all the kids and now they are deprived because of a stupid blunderbuss approach to the problem of speeding. She mentioned that she was from Holland were this type of offence is dealt with by a simple police fine with no penalty points and re course to the penalty points system. I had heard of this from no other than the Director of the GATSO factory when I had taken my staff over for a factory visit last year!He had pointed out that -per head of population the Dutch have more speeding tickets issued to them than the Scots but that it wasn't regarded as a big deal because you did not get points on your licence. unless the speed was grossly excessive and there was no subsequent hit on your insurance premiums. Politically therefore there was less pressure to ban or reduce the use of cameras in his country. The stats that they produced showed clearly that the use of cameras showed a mark reduction in accidents after their installation. (I didn't expect him to show me stats that show speed cameras are a waste of money) He told us that the average GATSO costs around £45,000 to install. I couldn't help but wonder if a metal box with a flash unit would have had the same effect on the statistics for accidents and perhaps the tens of thousands could be used to improve the road!
As a specialist solicitor who is dependent upon the continued prosecution of drivers it can seem strange to call for a reduction in the use of cameras but I think that it's time to reduce the proliferation of this "one solution to fix all" and time to re think the problem. The statistics also show that cameras are now having a reduced impact-Otherwise we would have NO accidents as there are now so many of the things all over the place!
Instead of de-criminalising speeding in Scotland we have some Sheriffs who actively consider forfeiture of drivers vehicles in speeding and Dangerous Driving cases!
I recently read that over in Canada Manitoba and Ontario are presently taking cars from people who have more than one conviction for a drink drive related offence and giving the car to a local community scheme for their use. In relation to persistent drink drivers this may well be a perfectly laudable scheme but I cannot for a minute consider that forfeiture of a =car in a speeding offence provides a proportionate and just sentence.

Alan Hutton Beats Speeding Rap

2008-08-28T10:08:00.006+01:00

Technorati Profile
Many of you may have seen the recent news item about Alan Hutton. Our client had the misfortune to be stopped by two road traffic police officers as he left Glasgow one sunny afternoon in November last year.
Mr Hutton's case was widely reported as if there had been a simple admin error however winning Mr Hutton's case like many others took a great deal of research, commitment and powers of persuasion to bring to a successful conclusion.
We had spotted at least 4 significant deficiencies in the Crown case. When it came to court ex Sheriff Mr Robert McCallum was prosecuting.He is a very experienced and very able Procurator Depute. He realised immediately that the Crown had at least two difficulties with the case and he explained to me that he would move the court for an adjournment. The case had been adjourned on a previous occasion ostensibly because a police witness had failed to attend. I had opposed this as I felt the real reason, was that the Crown knew that they had failed in some of the basic preparations in the case and had decided to try to plug the holes in their case. A few weeks later it looked like my suspicions had been borne out when we received calibration certificates for the police equipment. It was clear from the documents served that they had been prepared weeks AFTER the original trial diet!
This meant we would have to re visit the case preparation and we began with the video evidence. Usually a formality as it shows the police chase however in this case it may have proved to be very important as we soon realised that the Crown had another problem. The charge was speeding in a 50mph zone however we could see from the video that some of the speed detection was into a 60mph zone. The way in which the charge was libeled would make this a very important discovery. Yet again showing that you can leave no stone unturned when it comes to preparing a case for trial.
I don't intend explaining all the other areas of concern simply because our fellow solicitors and competitors read this blog and I think that it is time they did their own homework.
I was asked after the case if this "muck up" in case preparation was all the fault of the Procurator Fiscal and had to say no. The fact is that the PF in court probably only received the case papers an hour or so before the trial was due to start. He relied upon the systems set up in the Procurator Fiscal's office to ensure the case was fully prepared however when that office is dealing with probably the biggest workload of ANY court in Europe it is hardly surprising that a mere speeding charge fails to get all the attention that it requires. I reckon to prepare one of these cases properly takes at least 10hours. I can do this because I have clients like Mr Hutton who are willing to pay me to do all that I can to win. The PF's office is equipped with terrific legal resources such a online legal databases, case management software and scanning and document processing technology but these resources can deliver a lot more for small businesses like my own.We have invested heavily in this area an in fact we have the same, if not better IT solutions at work in our office. We can make the time to check legal databases, cross reference documents and statutes and check video evidence. However can the public purse ever afford to throw that level of resources at the prosecution of a minor crime? If the answer is no, then alternatives should be considered i.e. Should penalty points ALWAYS be imposed for speeding or should it be like in Holland and some other countries where speeding is dealt with by a fixed monetary penalty? Should cases always come before a criminal court or could some cases be dealt with by a civil remedy? (Then no criminal record?) There are a lot of questions, moral,political and legal all involved in the "Speeding in Scotland" debate.

Didn't Mean To Kill..... It Was A Car Accident!

2008-08-21T20:46:00.013+01:00

Car Crash Compilation - More videos are here

From 18 August 2008 drivers who cause death by careless driving or by driving while unlicensed or disqualified may go to prison. In Scotland you can expect to be tried on indictment before a Sheriff and Jury and get up to 5 years inside!

This is for something you had no intention of doing. You may have even tried very hard not to do it! Lets not get confused here. If you kill someone because of Dangerous Driving you can already go to jail. The distinction is that if it was a genuine error, a moment of inattention then you can now go to jail for a long time!

In the past Scottish courts have been unable to take the consequences of careless driving into account in their sentencing- For one obvious reason. "The driver didn't mean it and his driving did not fall far below what a reasonably competent driver would have done in the same circumstances" I have been practising law in the courts of Scotland for 24 years and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a poor piece of legislation drafted by those who are more concerned with placating the tabloid press than justice.

How can it be just to jail a person for being involved in an accident caused by poor driving. We are none of us perfect and can all from time to time experience a lapse in concentration or make a momentary error in judging a speed or a distance. Do we need to be crucified because another family has been devastated by our error?

"Killer driver jailed" may be a good headline but does it make sense where for instance we learn that the careless driving amounted to a driver who swerved to avoid a collapsed drain cover causing his car to roll over and crash into another vehicle causing death? There but for the grace of God go you or I. Believe me when I tell you that the stress of knowing that you are facing conviction and jail for accident could drive a decent law abiding motorist to suicide.

The 'Don't drive distracted' announcement from Justice Secretary Jack Straw is supposed to highlight a range of new careless driving laws but seems to refer to those people who choose to drive while putting on their makeup, host a conference call on their mobile or chomp down their Big Mac and fries as they scald their legs with coffee and drive to work. THAT IS DANGEROUS DRIVING and we have a law that protects us all. If you cause a death whilst doing so I have no doubt any reasonably minded jury would find you guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and off to jail you could go. We do not need a new law extending "careless driving". If the consequence of your careless driving is a death the court say it must be taken into account does this therefore mean that if the consequences are not death but injury that must also now be taken into consideration. I would suggest that the answer is now, yes. In Scotland we will have to see what the High Court makes of our new laws and how to interpret same.

Changing the law in relation to those idiots who cause death whilst deliberately driving without insurance or a licence has been a long time coming but again it does open the general public to a level of judicial jeopardy that they have never been in before. If you haven't checked your insurance company direct debits I suggest you do so today! (If you have any questions about this blog piece you may want to Ask A Lawyer

Vigilante Villagers Zap Motorists In Staffordshire

2008-08-07T10:07:00.009+01:00

I recently read in the Scotsman newspaper that a group of vigilantes hand been handed speed detection devices and set loose on the drivers who have the misfortune to drive through their villages. What next - Handcuffs and police cells built in the corner of the kitchen?
This mad scheme just adds fuel to the already blazing debate about the use of speed cameras in this country and if any Chief Constable thinks that it is the way to develop a sense of community and security in his region he needs his head examined.
We do not live in the Wild West nor should we treat motorists like Billy the Kid with guns pointing at him/her from behind lace curtains.
This scheme is a recipe for disaster with people settling scores with their neighbours from hell! Or maybe they will just pick on a particular type of motorist like the BMW owners!
These villagers do not know what they are letting themselves in for if they expect to be treated with respect and grace when they take to the streets armed with their weapons of mass prosecution. I can see them now, standing at the side of the road pointing their laser guns at the oncoming traffic with that Dirty Harry look on their face that says "I know what your thinking punk, now,make my day"
I am certain that motorists will fight any prosecution based on the evidence of some doddering old age pensioner who zapped them with a speed gun. I would like to think that if this insane scheme makes its way to Scotland the police forces here will kick it into touch however if they don't they can rely upon me challenge every single ticket that comes across my desk!
Meanwhile if anyone wants FREE legal advice about where they stand if they have been hit with a vigilanted penalty or any other kind they can log on to the Ask a Lawyer page of our site.

Mike Graham of Talk Radio -Speed Cameras

2008-08-06T07:41:00.000+01:00

Last night I caught the last few minutes of the Mike Graham late night show on Talksport radio.
Mike Graham hosted a really good phone in relating to speed cameras and their use and impact in the UK.
The clear majority of those getting through thought that speed cameras were really hitting the wrong people. This is something that I have been banging on about for years. Do we want a society where a large section is criminalised (Criminal record) just because they drift through a GATSO speed trap or drive past the dreaded "Talivan" on their way home from a long stressful day? Of course not! If I hadn't been so bushed from a day beating my gums in front of a dim witted Sheriff then I would have phoned in myself.
This is crazy, we end up having decent working people getting hammered with points, insurance hikes and even more importantly a criminal record- that they have to declare on all their disclosure forms. I had one distressed client call me (On our FREE helpline) recently to clarify whether she would have to disclose that she had a criminal record as she had just been convicted of 41mph in a 30mph zone. The answer was YES! Her reaction was genuine distress and upset together with the resolution that she would no longer help out at her kids school because she couldn't bare to fill in the disclosure form and admit that she now had a criminal record. No matter how much it was explained that "No one really regarded this as a criminal record, in the real world. She was resolute that she would try and keep her, "little secret" hidden!)
Here we have a decent member of our society, doing her bit to make her local school a better place for all the kids and now they are deprived because of a stupid blunderbuss approach to the problem of speeding. She mentioned that she was from Holland were this type of offence is dealt with by a simple police fine with no penalty points and re course to the penalty points system. I had heard of this from no other than the Director of the GATSO factory when I had taken my staff over for a factory visit last year!He had pointed out that -per head of population the Dutch have more speeding tickets issued to them than the Scots but that it wasn't regarded as a big deal because you did not get points on your licence. unless the speed was grossly excessive and there was no subsequent hit on your insurance premiums. Politically therefore there was less pressure to ban or reduce the use of cameras in his country. The stats that they produced showed clearly that the use of cameras showed a mark reduction in accidents after their installation. (I didn't expect him to show me stats that show speed cameras are a waste of money) He told us that the average GATSO costs around £45,000 to install. I couldn't help but wonder if a metal box with a flash unit would have had the same effect on the statistics for accidents and perhaps the tens of thousands could be used to improve the road!
As a specialist solicitor who is dependent upon the continued prosecution of drivers it can seem strange to call for a reduction in the use of cameras but I think that it's time to reduce the proliferation of this "one solution to fix all" and time to re think the problem. The statistics also show that cameras are now having a reduced impact-Otherwise we would have NO accidents as there are now so many of the bloody things all over the place!

Road Traffic Lawyer Claims SPECS Speed Cameras Cause Accidents

2008-08-02T19:13:00.002+01:00

Road traffic lawyer Graham Walker spoke out today about the latest controversy over the SPECS average speed camera detection system.

He claimed that since people are becoming aware that they can avoid speed detection prosecution by “lane hopping” the chances are that accidents will be increased.

He said “Ironically whilst taking my legal staff on a trip to the GATSO factory in the Netherlands we witnessed a road accident on the M77 heading for Prestwick airport. We all speculated as to whether a driver had been trying to avoid speed detection by changing lane. “

Unlike the Gatso cameras which records a car as it passes, these cameras measure the average speed of a driver between two fixed points. As the driver passes one set of cameras he/she is aware that his/her speed is being recorded. If they choose not to slow down the speed will be detected by the time they cross the next camera position further along the road and they will receive a fixed penalty in the post. The idea is to catch the speeder who slams on his brakes before a camera then speeds off as soon as he is past it.

However Home Office guideline governing the use of the camera equipment, are only valid if a driver is recorded in the same lane at the start and finish of each section by a linked pair of cameras.

I am certain that the camera's manufacturers - Speed Check Services (SCS) - can confirm that drivers could escape prosecution by lane-hopping but would of course do all they can to discourage same. Clearly the Home Office need to re invest in testing

Graham Walker said “My understanding is that these camera systems cost around £180,000 to £800,000 a time to install. You have to seriously consider if that money could be better spent on safety as opposed to speed cameras ie Could young drivers be subsidised in receiving Advanced Pass Plus qualifications or could repeat offenders receive training in Speed Awareness?

Cops Deserve To Be Defended Too!

2008-01-20T20:57:00.000Z

We were recently approached by a police officer who asked if we could defend him in relation to three separate speeding offences. He was quick to point out that the Police Federation (Equivalent of his Union) should be in a position to pay his fees.
We discussed the cases with him and considered that we could probably do something for him with these cases as it seemed that the police had not provided him with the same rights as any ordinary Joe.
It seemed to him as if his superiors had presumed him to be guilty and he felt under the cosh. The Federation sent his cases to the usual lawyer and he told us that their advise was "just plead guilty". Pretty scary advice when you consider that they had not seen the evidence or heard his full explanation of events.
We took the case on and spent weeks phoning and e-mailing the police fed insurance company to have them authorise expenditure. After God knows how many calls and e-mails they finally sanctioned our legal fees.
The first case that contained two charges called in court for trial a few weeks ago and we explained to the Crown why they would never be able to establish the crimes on the evidence that they had. The PF saw common sense and dropped both cases. There was no point wasting court time on a case that would never prove!
The next case is due to call within the next few weeks and I expect the same result.
The policeman had been worried about his job, the impact upon future pension rights and the stigma of being charged with these offences. Although senior police officials attended court nobody came forward to congratulate him on successfully defending his case nor did they ask what the technical defence was. I guess they just didn't care.
The point is that "speeding" can be seen by some as an insignificant offence however conviction doesn't just mean penalty points and a possible disqualification it can mean a tremendous amount on job prospects and future. When a policeman is charged with such an offence the pressure on them to "Just plead guilty" is enormous and I for one think that their Union should be running to defend and support them not running from the case.
A few years ago we defended a fire officer who was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Again his Union the fire service and the local council all refused to pay for his defence. We decided to deal with the case on a pro bono basis. This man had been driving for 25 years. He had a terrific service record and had never been convicted of even a minor road traffic offence. Yet, when the chips were down his bosses ran for cover. Within days of starting defence preparations we could see that he had a strong defence. Over the coming weeks of preparation the Fire Service stepped forward and accepted that they would indeed pay for their officers representation. A good decision as after a week of evidence the client was not convicted of causing death by dangerous driving but with simple careless driving. He was admonished and 3 penalty points endorsed on his licence.
The moral of the story if you are in the services is do not just accept what your superiors tell you regarding a criminal charge. Get good independent legal advice, everytime!

Fixed Penalty Screw Ups

2007-10-28T08:34:00.000Z

If you are caught by a speed camera and therefore disqualified under totting up how hard done by would you feel if a couple of YEARS later the authorities wrote to you to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we want to remove those penalty points now and give you your money back?"

We are presently dealing with a case where exactly that happened. He lost his licence, his job, his house and nearly his relationship. He managed to re train and has since been working in a job that doesn't require him to drive but as you can imagine,he feels justifiably upset.

We contacted the Authority concerned to ask how many such letters were sent out to be told that 900 had gone. This nightmare could have been repeated at least 900 times.
We are told that it occurred because of a "signage issue" and that we should really speak with the Council. Well, you can bet that we will be speaking to the"counsel" but it is going to be the counsel (QC) who can assist in bringing a civil remedy that provides some recompense for this poor man and his family.

It is not the first time and it won't be the last. I suppose it is human nature to assume in our sophisticated society that the authorities and the speed camera boys always get it right but in my own experience nothing could be further from the truth. An important aspect of evidence in some speeding trials can be something called the "measured half mile" This is the distance that the police use to calibrate their some equipment etc by checking against this undisputable distance they can perform the Speed = distance over time calculation and work out that everything they have is in tip top accurate condition. The problem is when some wee road worker comes along, digs up the road and then puts the white square back in the wrong place! Yes, it does happen. As a routine procedure we check the measured half mile that is referred to in cases and we measured it we discovered that it was several yards short of the 1/2 mile and therefore every prosecution that had relied upon it should have fallen. We were certainly successful in having the Crown drop our case but I sometimes wonder if they contacted everyone that had been prosecuted?
If you want to know how you should deal with a speeding trial you can get plenty of free information from the roadtrafficlaw.com website or if you have a concern regarding a "False Penalty" then please just give us a call and we will provide you with a free initial consultation.

The Section 172 Debate (Right of Silence)

2007-08-09T13:57:00.000+01:00

I have just had another couple of clients on the phone complaining about their lack of a right of silence in speeding cases. I am just a lawyer and I deal with the law the way it is but if people feel strongly about this area they should be banging on to their MP and MSP about it.

Whether you regard Idris Francis as an arrogant idiot or a defender of justice you will no doubt have heard of his case. Everyday we are asked "What shall I do? I've received a Notice of Intended Prosecution and it says I must answer" Well, you must. Let's not beat about the bush, what you want to do is to throw the bloody notice in the bin and forget about it but you know that it won't go away, so easily.

You may have broken the law and your wake up call is that you now have less rights than a murder suspect. A murder suspect or indeed a suspect in relation to any other crime need not make a statement that may incriminate himself.

Why are drivers a breed apart? It would seem that our government, here and in Europe consider that you have earned the right to drive by passing a test and now you are entitled to drive under a contract called Road Traffic legislation. One of the fundamental pieces of that legislation is the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 172 of that Act imposes a duty to give information in certain circumstances. Those circumstances tend to be speeding offences and with the profusion of speed cameras around (More in the UK than any other country in Europe) we know how important our government considers this issue to be.

Personally I consider the Idris Francis characters of our country to be principled people who will not allow the State to ride roughshod over our basic human rights. Of course there is a strong argument that upholds the principle that the State should require certain human rights to be set aside in the greater interest of society, but who, where and why is that line drawn.
If it is ok for the state to remove a right of silence with a piece of legislation (Road Traffic Act) is it ok for the State to remove that right in more serious cases such as murder?
Should murder suspects have a right to silence or should they be compelled to comment? Presently we have a situation that means if a murder suspect does not make a comment or insists upon his right of silence this can be commented upon at trial but this is not the same as removing the right of silence completely.
We might expect that a terrorist suspect will have less rights than the usual suspect as the consequences of one terrorist act are so vast. Since this risk to society is higher then society cannot be as free as desired. I think most people understand the arguments when it comes to high level crime but tend to feel that motorists are hammered with sentences that are really disproportionate to the crime committed. Is it right that a man should lose his licence, job mortgage and who knows what else because he has a dozen penalty points on his licence over the course of three years? How can that really reflect the nature of the offence.
Many people can accept that speeding can be dangerous and should be punished but when we look around Europe we see our neighbours imposing fines not hammering penalty points into the coffins of drivers.