[londons_explore]

For context for international readers, the UK has a lot of speed cameras and other automated ways to give out fines.

These get sent by snailmail to the 'owner'[simplification] of the vehicle using a government database. The owner must then, within a deadline, say who was driving the vehicle at that date and time.

If the owner fails to say who was driving, they have committed a criminal offence, and will be fined.

It looks like Tesla has in a bunch of cases not declared the driver on time. I'm willing to bet that's due to them just being slack with records in some cases - for example loaner cars, offences which occurred on the same day as a sale from person A to person B, etc.

18 offences across the whole fleet of >100k cars isn't much really, when you consider ~30% of motorists receive a fine in any given year.

[sensecall]

It's a ludicrous system – I've experienced it first hand.

If for some reason the letter isn't delivered (or indeed sent), the original offence is scrapped and a new offence issued for Failure to provide information.

Frustratingly, there is no obligation on the Police to provide proof of posting, and per the law, it is deemed received once sent.

Try proving you didn't receive something...

[belorn]

The primary alternative is to have signed delivery, in which case some people will simply refuse to sign it and thus prevent delivery. Signed delivery is the way the postal service usually differentiate between normal delivery which has some kind of error rate which the postal service do not take responsibility for, and the signed service which usually carry some insurance (up to a maximum) of delivery.

The US has their Service of process which is commonly seen in movies, which is often made into a joke in comedies.

A much older system is the one where by law people had to put a notice in the news paper, sometimes multiple notices, and then that was considered enough proof of delivering the notice.

It would be an interesting conversation to philosophy how a future system should be designed that can't be refused, where delivery to the recipient is guarantied, and where the sender and the delivery service must produce proof of their parts.

[sensecall]

Perhaps, though I’m fairly confident that given enough thought we could fairly quickly come up with a much better process; and without the risk of convicting individuals because of unsent or undelivered post.

[doublerabbit]

My father worked on the early 90's contract that implemented the speed camera's on the motorway. The future road map was to make these digitally automated. Dark Fibre was laid but the plans were scrapped as the government saw it as a waste of money. This is why we are stuck with the ludicrous system.

For a long while if you were changing lanes while speeding through the camera it couldn't capture the plate. Again the government didn't care. Of course now resolved with the archaic future technology we have now.

[rob74]

I'm not sure what the technology by which the data from the speed camera is downloaded has to do with identifying the driver?

The reason for this "ludicrous" procedure is that the police can identify the owner of the car (based on the license plate), but not the driver, so the owner has to say who was driving. And all of this has to be done in a way that will hold up in court, therefore snail mail. The same procedure exists in Germany (of course, the bureaucracy here has its ludicrous sides too) and I bet in other countries as well.

[jaennaet]

In Finland automatic camera fines (they're not exactly fines but I have no idea how to translate "liikennevirhemaksu" so work with me here) are the problem of whoever owns the car. If the owner wasn't the one driving the car, then it's up to them to inform the police who was actually driving

[rob74]

Interesting! If I translate it from Finnish to German, Google says something along the lines of "traffic violation fee". Usually you can't punish someone for something someone else has done, but maybe if you call it a fee (which doesn't imply punishment) instead of a fine, you can (at least in Finland)?

Reminds me of the fines for using public transport without a ticket in Germany: they're not called fines either, but "erhöhtes Beförderungsentgelt" ("increased transportation fee"). I'm sure there's a very good reason for this name too...

[jaennaet]

"Traffic vioaltion fee" is a great translation. As far as I understand the logic behind them, they're meant for relatively minor violations where a fine would be kind of overkill and specifically have to be "directed" at the right person.

The downside is that unlike fines which scale by income here – the term is "päiväsakko" or "day fine", a fine unit that scales with net income – the fees are fixed sums, so unless a person with high income really does something heinous with their car, they're not as likely to get 200k€ (really) speeding tickets.

So now if you're rich you can speed all you want and pay a relatively small fee for it, as long as you're not doing 200km/h in a school zone or something like that

Edit: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4233383

From 2004. He was driving 80km/h in a 40km/h zone.

"Millionaire hit with record speeding fine"

One of Finland’s richest men has been fined a record 170,000 euros ($217,000) for speeding through the centre of the capital, police said on Tuesday.

[rlpb]

> And all of this has to be done in a way that will hold up in court, therefore snail mail.

This needs to change. Snail mail is no longer reliable. Letters often get delayed by weeks or go missing altogether, but the law still assumes that justice is being done by it being sufficient to assume that a letter that was posted has been received within a few days. It's no longer true.

[dylan604]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just issue the fine to the owner of the car? The owner allowed the person to use their car and accepts that responsibility. If it was stolen, then just say so. Even in the case of fleets, someone is responsible for know who is operating the vehicle and when. The gov't shouldn't care about it any further than holding the owner responsible. If the owner doesn't want to rat out the actual driver, then the owner takes the hit on points/fines/whatever

[adamauckland]

Speeding is a criminal offence, lying about who was driving is punishable by prison.

[londons_explore]

> Dark Fibre was laid

And now you would never bother laying fiber to a speed camera when you can just put a SIM card in the thing.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

It, in reality, works just fine. Stop trying to harbour sympathy from Americans with their prebiotics traffic safety systems.

[jen20]

That is indeed ludicrous - I bet the same does not apply to your returned information either.

[sensecall]

Correct. Obligation is on the individual to prove receipt by the Police (in the event they claim you didn't respond).

[ndsipa_pomu]

I believe that for Royal Mail at least, proof of posting is considered sufficient to work as proof of receipt.

[RansomStark]

that's difficult when most post is dropped in a metal box on a street. But I'd argue that not the issue people have with the way these laws work in practice.

For those that don't use the UK postal service, Royal Mail has a recorded delivery option that can show that, at least something, mostly likely what was sent, was delivered to the address.

The issue here is that the UK government has given itself a pass that, 'trust us, we sent it' is fair and legal, while at the same time refusing to allow not the government to use the same argument.

People tend to get upset when laws and legal defenses are asymmetric, doubly so when its skewed to protect the bureaucracy at the expense of the citizen.

Just for reference the Royal Mail uses complaints to track losses, in the year 2017-2018, Royal Mail received 250,000 complaints for lost items, out of around 6 billion items processed [0]. Of course that requires that the sender somehow knows that the item was lost, so losses are likely significantly higher.

Without a recorded delivery, 'I never received what you sent' should absolutely be a valid defense. Although, 'Trust me I sent it', should not be a valid argument for either side, unless they can show that the item was send and received.

[0] https://descrier.co.uk/business/how-frequently-is-post-lost-...

[amiga386]

The Scottish court system uses Royal Mail Signed For to send citations, I believe it makes two attempts to deliver, and won't consider the citation delivered unless the named addressee signs for it.

...on the other hand, if you don't respond to citations e.g. for a criminal case, they might then escalate by issuing a warrant for your arrest.

Looking at the English civil courts, I'm having trouble parsing their rules:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...

My reading is that either the court sends the summons (claim form) and comes to its own conclusion if it has been served or not, but if you choose to do it or have a process server do it, you have to submit a certificate of service to the court. If you do that, all it says they require is the method and date you sent it, no proof it got delivered!

Furthermore, rule 6.18 says that if the court posts the claim form itself, it will inform you if the form is returned to them undelivered... but will deem it "served" anyway, provided you gave them the correct address?

[sensecall]

You articulated my frustrations much better than I did.

Given more time, money and determination, I’d love have properly challenged the court system/law around this.

Alas, I didn’t and just got slammed with points and a fine. I’m still bitter about it all these years later.

[paganel]

It's ludicrous that the British put up with those laws, at some point they have to assume responsibility.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Not everybody wants to be American, thankfully.

[pjdesno]

Tesla finance seems legendary in this regard. A friend here in MA got hauled down to city hall because their auto excise taxes were 3 years overdue - they're the responsibility of the owner of a leased car, in this case Tesla finance. According to the person there, the town (50K people or so) had a bunch of Tesla owners in the same boat.

[ninalanyon]

> ~30% of motorists receive a fine in any given year.

Really? Or have you (or someone else) just divided the number of fines by the number of motorists?

[londons_explore]

Original source:

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/drivers-receiving...

I suspect the division method.

[youngtaff]

Parking Charge Notices are really fines

Most traffic related fines are voluntary in my view… don’t speed and you won’t get one

[philwelch]

That’s a horrible system. Britain used to be famous for the professionalism of their police and now they can’t be bothered to make a traffic stop and give people speeding tickets face to face.

[mercanlIl]

I’m a bit biased here, because a close friend’s mother was killed by someone speeding through a red light.

I think automated enforcement of minor driving infractions is a good thing. More efficient use of government resources. Incentivizes drivers to follow the rules of the road.

[philwelch]

Automated systems are fine, they would just be a lot better if they were used to dispatch patrol vehicles in real time rather than mailing letters to auto manufacturers.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

I’ve never felt more unsafe on the roads than when I’ve been in the US.

You connect the dots.

These systems work. They change behaviour and they save lives.

American exceptionalism is tiring to no end.

[cucumber3732842]

Now, I'll be the first to agree that you're biased, but surely you see that the rules and norms of the road are generally far more nuanced and not necessarily identical the rules of the road as the government writes them?

There's no reason motorists shouldn't be able to go almost any speed on motorways, conditions permitting. Germany's system is fairly sensible in this regard and many American states have one or two good laws that correlate well with norms and should be adopted elsewhere.

If the rules and laws actually reflected norms of behavior there would be more appetite for enforcement.

[stronglikedan]

Except that this:

> automated enforcement of minor driving infractions

Would not have prevented this:

> someone speeding through a red light

It's the think-of-the-children fallacy

[mercanlIl]

Why not? Knowing you’re going to get caught and fined for running a red light, which typically holds significant penalties, would act as a deterrent.

You can lose your license for that kind of nonsense (via demerit points), and they’d have it on camera.

[pjc50]

It wouldn't prevent it, strictly, but proper enforcement would stop people from getting into the habit of driving that badly.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Thankfully there is more than one country on earth and we actually have countless examples of this stuff working. Not everything that you’re not personally subject to has to be left to debating hypotheticals.

[circuit10]

Surely less people will do that if they get fined for it?

[jen20]

Except, it does. People worried about getting a fine will not chance a light on yellow. This is patently obvious for anyone that has ever driven in London (where I learned to drive).

Anyone that doesn't care about the fine (perhaps in a stolen car) may still do it, but they'd do it regardless.

[skippyboxedhero]

Ah yes, the risk of small fines that is why people won't do dangerous things. Have we tried a £50 fine for murder?

Economist brain.

The problem is very simple: driving tests aren't hard enough, too many people have driving licences, and we don't retest people. In addition, enforcement of people driving without a licence is completely pathetic (as anyone who has driven in the UK can attest to, the stuff I have seen over the past few years is insane...obviously there is an underlying cause but if you see a clapped out hatchback, Just Eats bag in the front seat, P plates on the car, you know to steer well clear...as if the multiple dents on the car already didn't give it away).

[jen20]

Automatic enforcement of dumb low level stuff is supposed to free up police time for the more serious things. Whether that happens or not is a political decision. I remember the time before red light cameras in London, and the time afterwards, and the situation was much improved after they showed up.

I agree the driving test is too easy (though several orders of magnitude more difficult than in the US states I've had to do one in), and there is too little enforcement of otherwise dangerous behaviour.

[mercanlIl]

Some of these infractions also carry the risk of losing your license. So it is more than just the fine.

[faefox]

They're sort of damned if they do and damned if they don't, aren't they? If they make traffic stops for speeding people will moan about how they're just trying to meet quotas or ask why they aren't going after "real criminals."

People just want to drive irresponsibly and they will invent any reason to justify why they're the victim, actually.

[josephcsible]

You've inadvertently completed both parts of a proof by cases. We don't want speeding laws enforced at all right now, because most speed limits are way too low, because they're set for reasons other than actual traffic safety. Let's raise all speed limits to the 85th percentile speed first and only then talk about stepping up enforcement.

[Mawr]

Let's not. The Xth percentile speed is not an appropriate measure for a few reasons:

1. Humans are not generally capable of sufficiently accurate long-term low-incidence risk assessment. Meaning, you irrationally value potentially getting to work 10 seconds faster over a 50% increased chance you run over a child crossing the street.

2. Humans are subject to too many irrational psychological factors; stuff like:

• False sense of security due to sitting in a box isolated from the outside world, that's advertised to keep them "safe" in case of a collision.

• Herd mentality, e.g. "everyone's going over the limit, so I will too". Bonus points for rationalizing this behavior "because it's safer to go at the speed of traffic!".

• Delusional rationalizations like "if the limit is 50 then going 10 over must be fine too, due to <reasons>!". Bonus points for applying the "5/10/15/20 over" rule for every possible speed limit — basic maths and physics say hello!

3. The speed humans will travel at on a given road depends primarily on what speed that road seems designed for. People will drive faster on straight, wide roads and slower on winding, narrow ones, regardless of the speed limit. Changing speed limits has little effect compared to changing the physical infrastructure. Show me a picture of a road and I'll tell you how fast people will drive on it.

As such, it makes no sense to first make some sort of a road and only then figure out the limits by observing real traffic. Figure out the appropriate limit first, then design the road with it in mind.

[josephcsible]

> Bonus points for rationalizing this behavior "because it's safer to go at the speed of traffic!".

But that's true (look up the Solomon curve), and it's exactly why the 85th percentile would be better.

> Delusional rationalizations like "if the limit is 50 then going 10 over must be fine too, due to <reasons>!". Bonus points for applying the "5/10/15/20 over" rule for every possible speed limit — basic maths and physics say hello!

You have cause and effect backwards. People think it's safe to go over the speed limit precisely because most speed limits are too low.

> Changing speed limits has little effect compared to changing the physical infrastructure. Show me a picture of a road and I'll tell you how fast people will drive on it.

Right. So even if going slower is safer, just making the speed limit lower won't accomplish that.

[fc417fc802]

I'll agree with you regarding major arterials but disagree when it comes to suburban neighborhoods. What feels safe from the perspective of someone operating a vehicle can be quite different than what's actually safe when there are pedestrians and cars unexpectedly popping out of driveways.

[amiga386]

They can still be professional, but Tory cuts made there be a lot fewer police (23,500 police cut from 2010-2019: https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/shock-figures-reveal-23500-polic...) so they don't have the manpower to sit about waiting for speeders.

The UK is not alone in using traffic cameras to enforce speed restrictions. There was a funny example in Germany where their automated cameras blur the face of any passenger... leaving them to be unable to see who was driving a UK left-hand-drive car with Animal from the Muppets in their passenger seat: https://boingboing.net/2008/10/27/german-traffic-cops.html

[philwelch]

If they stopped arresting people for mean tweets I'm sure they could more than make up the manpower shortfall.

[skippyboxedhero]

your source...is a union? really? you can look at ONS numbers yourself (and you will see this isn't the case).

Scotland has seen a drastic reduction in police numbers (unfortunately for you, not a Tory government :( oh well) despite record government funding levels. Labour's plan appears to be attempting the same trick with consolidation of forces, which should allow massive reductions in numbers. In Scotland, there are some days when there is one traffic car covering an area the size of England, and the expected time to respond to car accidents is usually 6-12 hours (this includes situations with serious injuries).

There is a lot more going on here than funding because government has never had more resources. The Tories, to their credit, actually put money in but (even then) the results were no better.

Also, in response to original comment, I am not sure why you think the Police are competent. Much of the policing function of a few decades ago not lies with private companies. Police numbers are generally high but the level of output has never been lower. You are seeing this in multiple areas of the public sector, public-sector output hasn't increased since 1997 whilst govt spending to GDP has basically doubled. The police have massive structural issues with their remit in the UK because of demographic change, and it is generally seen as a career for people of low ability resulting in fairly weak performance. It doesn't feel complex but than you realise that people don't understand that a politician looking to get elected might say it is even simpler. Does anyone actually work at a company where more spending increases results? I have never seen this to be the case. If anything, more spending seems to lead worse results.

[amiga386]

> you can look at ONS numbers yourself

ONS numbers say >20,000 fewer frontline officers from 2010-2018, which is pretty much in line with what the union said. See the graph here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-workforce-en...

> In Scotland, there are some days when there is one traffic car covering an area the size of England

Are you high, or did an AI write this?

Area of Scotland: 80,231 km^2

Area of England: 132,932 km^2

So on some days, in Scotland, there is one traffic car covering an area that is larger than Scotland. OK, where's it patrolling? Or are you saying Police Scotland only sends out 60% of one car to cover the whole country?

[skippyboxedhero]

2010-2018...when did the Tories time in government end? Based on your comment, I am assuming 2018.

Lol, quite the pedant. To be clear though, yes when they are short-staffed they only have one car actually on patrol for the whole country (iirc, the actual full staffing policy overnights is two cars...which you can see has been covered by the media).

Traffic was consolidated into Police Scotland so there is only one police force, and so there aren't local forces patrolling a local area. I believe the total number of traffic police is something like 400 now (which is mostly not people on patrol) and so, overnight around holidays, the policy is to have two cars which turns into less than that on some occasions.

[GordonS]

> In Scotland, there are some days when there is one traffic car covering an area the size of England,

Scotland is smaller than England, so this makes no sense.

Furthermore, anyone who drives regularly in Scotland knows this to be completely false - there are plenty of traffic cops around (sometimes incognito too), and they are sometimes even seen waiting in rural and semi-rural areas.

[skippyboxedhero]

Again, there are not. The number has fallen significantly...I am not sure what you are arguing with (or why). You can just check because the number of police and the number of traffic police is reported. If you just Google, you will see that the current staffing level for overnight in Scotland is two cars for traffic police.

I live in a rural area, I have done so for two/three decades. When I moved here, you very often saw police doing speed checks because I live in an affluent area and the police would come out if you asked the right people. I don't think I have seen that for fifteen years. Again though, the data is that the number is way down since consolidation...which was the point and stated aim of the policy.

Hilarious to see pearl-clutching when people point out the SNP has been doing this after complaining about the Tories. This is why the UK is so shit, reality doesn't matter, just politics.

[GordonS]

> Hilarious to see pearl-clutching when people point out the SNP has been doing this after complaining about the Tories. This is why the UK is so shit, reality doesn't matter, just politics.

I'm not sure where this tirade came from; I wasn't arguing in favour of any political party.

But getting back to the matter of traffic police - I have eyes, and I can see traffic cops with them. I have family in the force elsewhere in Scotland too, so I know that what you're saying simply isn't true. I really don't know why you are making this false claim.

[pjc50]

I avoid speeding issues by the one weird trick of not speeding.

Besides, money is a big factor here. If you want to make it cost-effective for someone to physically flag down speeders and ticket them, you'll have to raise the ticket fines significantly. And (sensibly) the revenue goes to HMT and not the individual police forces, avoiding America's perverse incentives, so you'd have to raise the police budget as a separate line item.

(pursuing speeders is right out - police chases are extremely discouraged for obvious safety reasons)

[philwelch]

Tesla isn't speeding either (probably; if FSD is speeding that's another issue), they're just manufacturing cars and leasing them to people in the UK.

In most US states, auto registration and auto titles are two separate things, which means our automated traffic camera systems can mail the tickets to the people who are probably actually driving the car. But I guess it's easy for a country like Britain to lay that kind of burden on auto manufacturers when they don't have any of them anymore.

[pjc50]

Not manufacturer, leasing agent. Other manufacturers tend to contract out leasing. This probably happens to them occasionally as well, which makes me wonder how newsworthy this really is.

[josephcsible]

You can't avoid tickets from speed cameras just by not speeding. You can't even avoid them just by not driving! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY38N4vnhzI

And besides, as other commenters pointed out, even if things get lost in the mail or the government otherwise drops the ball, they'll still consider that your fault.

[atonse]

I disagree. As much as I hate speed cameras, the way they’ve been implemented (meaning, the fact that you get a letter with evidence and it’s clear you committed the offense, and usually no points, like you might get from a cop) seems to strike a balance of fair punishment.

Now, whether they’re that effective at reducing speeding is a bigger question. Because people just slam the brakes for the 100 feet around the camera and then resume speeding.

[limagnolia]

Are the UK cameras non-mobile and clearly marked? Making the cameras mobile and not making them obvious should fix that problem.

[youngtaff]

Still plenty of mobile cameras in the UK

[starwatch]

I actually quite like the system. They tend to only install speed cameras at high hazard areas e.g. where fatal accidents have occurred. Also the camera's are mostly super visible - bright high-vis yellow, and there are often warning signs as you approach them.

It's quite a different story in other countries at least in terms of visibility!

[watwut]

There is nothing unprofessional about it. Austria and German have cameras and send the ticket to the owner of the car - based on the plates.

There is no reason to insist this must be face to face thing.

[josephcsible]

This story is exactly the reason to insist that: cars can be driven by people other than their owners.

[watwut]

Sure. And legal entity that borrows those cars just need to follow the law.

Nothing prevents them from borrowing cars.

[ceejayoz]

"Hey, you got a ticket when you borrowed my car. Pay me back or you don't get to borrow it next time."

[josephcsible]

If you break the government's rules, that should be between you and the government. I shouldn't have to front the cost of any fines or otherwise be in the middle of it.

[ceejayoz]

If you lend your car to someone, that’s between you and them.

Same if they crash it. Or run it out of gas.

[dm319]

Here, you can enjoy them here:

https://youtu.be/u98oi4qThbQ?si=2MQB8dFQ2PXI10Az

[6LLvveMx2koXfwn]

They do do this as well - but speeding was/is such a people killing epidemic and cameras scaled better than people and are cheaper.

[6LLvveMx2koXfwn]

for the skeptical: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...

[globular-toast]

So now you've got two cars speeding down the road and a complete waste of limited police resources when you could just have a speed camera.

[KptMarchewa]

I've never seen someone being against a system like this that wasn't pro speeding themselves.

[psunavy03]

There's a great generalization that conveniently excuses you not having to engage with viewpoints you disagree with.

[philwelch]

I've never seen you before either.