Chris Williams, Cardiff said: "Funny, I thought we were British? Why do we need Europeans to tell us what we can and can't do? Must be my mistake."

...because the 2 people complaining that they were caught speeding decided to take it to the European Court of Human Rights - that's why 'Europe' got involved...

Matthew Morley, Bradford,

Forgot to add, there are much bigger issues at stake here than just revealing the name of a driver - that's why the ECHR in Strasburg delivered their judgement.

Funny, I thought we were British? Why do we need Europeans to tell us what we can and can't do? Must be my mistake.

Chris Williams, Cardiff,

When I was Road Safety Officer for South Wales Police in 1981-1983 - there were about 3,140 people killed on the UK roads every year. 20 odd years later, with over 6000 Speed Cameras and £14.5 million going into the cofferes from penalty fines - the number of killed remains identical.

That shows the facts that speeding per se does NOT kill. In-appropriate speeding might. The real reason that speeding is targetted is that the police have a 'Solution' looking for a problem. The solution is laser technology. The problem has to be found. i.e. speeding. The true causes of RTA's have not yet been the subject of technology such as a device to detect:-
1. sudden lane changes, 2. tail-gating, 3. reckless driving, 4. drugged drivers, 5. racing, 6. distracted drivers inside the cab, etc etc. These all contribute to accidents and deaths more than 'speeding' ever did or does.
I used to be a Traffic Cop for 15 years, Road Safety for 3 yrs and Consultancy too - I know what I'm talking about.

Chris Williams, Cardiff,

It is the duty of all citizens to assist the police in pursuit of any investigations into crime, even if for example, physical help is needed in arresting a suspect in the street and the policeman calls for help. To not assist should also be a chargeable offence as it is in many countries. To refuse to identify the driver of a speeding vehicle that you own is therefore logically an offence.

However, now that it has been proven that speed cameras do NOT work as far as reducing road accidents is concerned, then the correct action would be to campaign to have them removed except in known and provable accident black spots. Failure of the responsible authorities to obey the wishes of the majority of drivers should result in their removal at the next elections and perhaps civil disobedience as far as the workings of the cameras are concerned.

Brian Deller, Marbella, Spain

The fight for safety on the roads goes on. We can't allow these selfish law breakers and speed merchants who are taking away the lives of the innocents to succeed. They have to be stopped.

Put the lives of other people in danger by flouting the law and expect to be punished. The right to silence of the accused should not exist.

Dr N.Mykura, Dorchester, UK

At last a ruling from Strasbourg judged on commonsense.

Both drivers or the driving occupants of their cars were speeding and therefore breaking the law. I trust the majority of people living in this country want to live in a law abiding state and therefore fully welcome this judgement.

If the 'human rughts' people of this world all had their way we would be close to living in anarchy.

I cannot see the argument from Geoff above about the effectiveness of road cameras. Whether they are effective or not is irrelevant. Both vehilcles were travelling at speeds in excess of imposed speed restrictions 47mph/30mph and 69mph/40mph and the drivers therefore both guilty of driving offences. Whether a camera or a police patrol has caught them makes no difference.

Tom, Ashford, Kent

In response to Janalean's comment, whilst what you say is true, heed what happened to me: Despite not remembering if it was myself of my wife driving and despite requesting photos which only showed the back of the car and were therefore inconclusive, I still ended up being prosecuted for failing to provide driver details (interestingly, not the original speeding offence) and ended up with a 200 GBP fine and six penalty points. If I had just gone with the original speeding ticket, I would have got a 3 point 40 GBP fine. I guess the court was out to prove that it would get its pound of flesh come what may...! My Swedish friend tells me that if two people in a car get pulled over by the police for speeding in Sweden, so long as the Police don't actually know who was driving, if each person blames each other then neither can be prosecuted...!

Barney, St. Austell, Cornwall

"The legal compulsion on motorists applied only where the driver was alleged to have committed an offence and the police were authorised to demand information only “as to the identity of the driver”."
Does this mean all you have to say is "the driver was Fred Smith" without any other remarks such as address, ect?

Ken, Hemel Hempstead,

The right to silence is about self-incrimination. They weren't being asked to admit their guilt but simply furnish the police with information required to pursue a criminal inquiry.

eddie reader, birmingham, uk

One point of law worth mentioning is that if the accused states that he/she cannot remember who was driving on that particular day and in view of that can a photo be provided to help identify the driver, then on receipt of the photo assuming the driver cannot be recognised nor that of the front seat passenger ,then as long as you keep saying that you cannot remember who was driving ,you cannot be prosecuted..

janalean, coalville, leicestershire

This is an appalling result for justice, which has severely undermined a fundamental principle of our legal system and has set a awful precedent which can now be extended to any other situation as another step to making this a police state.

It is not as though speed cameras are even effective as a road safety measure. We are the speed-camera capital of Europe, but we are not seeing any significant improvements in road safety, with a 20% increase in children killed in this last year, and our road safety is now falling behind many other European countries.

Geoff, Northants,

At last a ruling from the judiciary which puts the rights of people in general ahead of the so called rights of the individual. Roll on the day when we see more commonsense rulings which protect the rights of those who want to live a law abiding and responsible life in peace and puts that ahead of those who would exploit their so called rights at the expense of others.

Peter du Feu, Torquay, UK