Mr Paynton Piggott suggested that “numbering would be an advantage to motorists who were gentlemen and drove with consideration, as it would show that they were not driving in such a way as to make them ashamed of identification”.
Lieutenant Colonel Daniell said “steam launches were numbered for the purposes of identification and he could not see why [cars] should not be similarly numbered”.
After MPs concluded that motor legislation had become “absolutely ineffective” by 1902, the Automobile Club stated: “It is necessary to accept identification or allow the 12mph limit to remain.
Methods of identification would at once secure punishment of the offenders who are now bringing [drivers] generally into the worst repute.
The attitude of the authorities gives reason for believing that he who uses his automobile as a gentleman would have no reason to fear that he would be the victim of injustice.” However, many Autocar readers were highly opposed.
“The proposal is monstrous. Is my private carriage to appear in the station yard among [the horse-drawn equivalents] of my friends disfigured by a placard proper to a cab? Such a regulation will naturally be considered offensive and derogatory by all quiet and decent people,” protested Bertram Blount.
“Motorists who are advocating the affixing of numbers or other conspicuous marks of identification upon private motor cars are not only digging their own graves but sealing the doom of the industry as well,” furthered Leopold Canning.
“‘Black-listing’ would have a far greater effect on ‘scorchers’ than the wholesale numbering of cars. If careful and considerate motorists were allowed to drive [unidentified], a large number would advertise that the driver of that car was not a man to be trusted to consider the feelings or safety of other users of the road,” posited Mr G de Freville.
An anonymous correspondent was worried about “the perpetual nuisances” of “practical jokers” and “contemptibly nervous old women” reporting his number unjustifiably.