[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.

[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).

[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.