Today’s musing is on traffic matters, starting with speeding.

A number of people have suggested to me that they should not be convicted because the police were not highly visible when they caught them speeding. Why? Road safety is not some sort of game. It is a criminal offence to speed. What makes it different from other crimes whereby the police should make themselves visible when trying to catch those committing this crime? Whether or not the police were obvious to a careful and observant driver is neither here nor there.

Sometimes I do have some sympathy with those charged. I noted the camera van parked in the lay-by on the Inverness side of the roadworks at the North Kessock junction the other day. It was catching drivers speeding up having already passed the coned section and after any possible danger to the workmen but before the derestriction signs. Not a good way to impress motorists.

Others have suggested they do not need to answer the demand sent after their vehicle has been photographed either speeding or disobeying lights. When one remembers that a failure to provide information about the driver could lead to your disqualification, such an attitude is incomprehensible. One suggested that as the requirement in law is to be made to the keeper of the vehicle, that was different from the registered keeper and he could thus ignore it! No. Equally puzzling was the father who said he did not have to say it could have been his son driving when he had lent him the car because he was not there to see if the son had allowed someone else to drive. The requirement is to provide what information it is in your power to give. You do not have to be absolutely certain. His failure to say it could have been the son is clearly a breach of the law.

Sometimes however it simply is not possible to say who was driving. For example a group of men have driven the length of the country swapping over whenever the driver became tired. They are unlikely to know who was driving at any particular spot and the only answer that can be given is to name all four as possible drivers. It would not do not to reply because they could not be precise. It had to be one of them. This becomes less likely to be accepted when the journey is local. It is not unreasonable to expect locals to know where places are and from that to work out who was the likely driver at the time. Again though, there may be an occasion when that is not possible.

In camera cases, the police can be asked for a copy photograph. You would be surprised just how good the photographs are. One driver suggested to me he should say it was his wife who was driving so as to avoid a possible totting-up disqualification. As the photograph clearly showed the driver to have short hair and a moustache, I had to warn him he could be jailed for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Another came up with the wheeze that as he was driving round a corner and the speed gun works on straight lines, it could not be used against him. The argument is that the gun works on the Doppler effect i.e. the signal will take more or less time to return to the gun depending upon whether the car is going away from or coming to it. That signal is sent and received in a straight line but the car is travelling in a curve. I know it has been a long time since I was at school but I still think the circumference of a circle is greater than the diameter. As far as I could see all he proved was he was going even faster than suggested. Not a good defence.

Incidentally, if the PF gets the details on the number plate wrong, that is not a defence. On the other hand, if the police get it wrong in sending the demand, then you cannot be criticised for failing to say who was driving, as you cannot know who was driving the vehicle bearing the wrong number plate.

More worrying are the number of cases where a vehicle has been cloned. Here, unknown to you, someone owning a car of the same model and colour as you puts your number plate on his car. If he is caught on camera and the police check, the vehicle will come up as genuine as there is indeed a car of that make, model and colour properly registered, i.e. yours. Now the villain can park where he likes, speed as he wishes and drive through the congestion zone in London with impunity. All of the penalties will be sent to you instead and you are going to have to satisfy the authorities you were not there. This is a growing and very real problem as cameras proliferate around the country.

While on driving matters, my thoughts are with the driver of the silver Mondeo who drove so close to my tail, I assumed he wanted a lift. Yes my number plate is N 555 LAW. If you have to get that close to read it, go and see an optician immediately. Alternatively perhaps he was trying to prove the adage that only a fool ignores the two second rule.

Finally, a lady went to see her Doctor to be told the bad news that she only had six months to live. On asking what she could do, she was puzzled to be told to marry a lawyer. Would this extend her life, she asked. The reply? "No, it would simply feel like eternity."