Identity Cards

[TheHeathens]

Because a number plate is not identity of the person. If all police took your position and said we're not going to stop motorists for driving dangerously(and some do), because they MAY attack me, no one would ever be stopped.

You're waffling (!) and not answering the question posed to you. Law abiding people will give you their details anyway and their numberplate can be used to track the owner of the car (who is ultimately responsible for the person driving it, unless taken illegally).

Why are you bringing the police into it? That's their job; our taxes pay for them to do their job so we don't have to. What a stupid point.

The idea that all uninsured drivers would attack you for asking for identity is just an excuse for cowardice. There are situations where hit and run mentalities hit and can't run. They sometimes have to face their victims. As it stands now, all they have to do is convince their victims that they are who they say they are.

Firstly, I never said all uninsured drivers would attack you, just that you are increasing the risk. Cowardice? Would you be happy with your pregnant wife (for example) demanding prints? Anyway, this wasn't the question.

As you're myopic, I'll make it very easy for you:

How do you ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the person taking the fingerprints?

Take a look at this thread:

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...ghlight=police

If taking prints became a requirement at the scene of an accident, an uninsured person would have to refuse to give them or give them knowing he wouldn't be on the run for long(if you get my drift). In the former case you would know immediately to call the police and in the latter the insurance companies could take steps to find the culprit.

The police wouldn't treat that as an emergency call. Before I went to Uni I worked in a petrol station and their average response time to 'drive-offs' was about 2 hours at best. Best take off those rose-tinted spectacles.

Now you say I am confusing voluntary and compulsory acts. Actually I'm not, because I go to the root of the problem. You just fish around on the surface, like with economics.

At least I have some knowledge of economics. Yours can be written on the top corner of your beloved Daily Mail. What exactly qualifies you in economics again?

Your knowledge (and I can dig up the quote) is based upon "I read it on an internet forum" or "I spoke to someone".

This argument is for another thread but I suspect we're now in a Bull run and if we are, you're going to look very silly over the next few months.

To drive on the road is not a compulsory act. Therefore if you don't like the terms and conditions(implications) don't apply.

You need a licence to drive on the road - make it compulsory to carry that when driving if you really need to prove your identity.