Interesting dashcam footage.

[thirdcrank]

guess we can stop sending in footage of those close passes

I think that seems to sum it up. There's sometimes more to a case like this than meets the eye, but as an example of prolonged bad driving without any obvious reason such as trying to escape from the police, this takes some beating. Thankfully, no serious injuries but that's more by good luck than good planning. Had that driver been annoyed by a pedestrian or a cyclist, the result might have been a serious injury.

[reohn2]

guess we can stop sending in footage of those close passes

I think that seems to sum it up. There's sometimes more to a case like this than meets the eye, but as an example of prolonged bad driving without any obvious reason such as trying to escape from the police, this takes some beating. Thankfully, no serious injuries but that's more by good luck than good planning. Had that driver been annoyed by a pedestrian or a cyclist, the result might have been a serious injury.

Exactly and it's because of his/her attitude to another road user that their driving licence should be withdrawn and a heavy fine imposed as a punishment,their rehabilitation should be resitting their driving test,all IMHO of course and shows the toothless nature of the CPS that their consideration of the incident is in the balance,after all lives were in danger.
The enforcement of the law is joke on UK roads.

[ChrisOntLancs]

all i've seen/read is the link posted, there HAS to be something more to the story... and i wish they'd include it!

[mjr]

The video in question (note the clock speeds up/slows down):
[youtube]SHSh1Xn-38[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SHSh1Xn-38

[reohn2]

What's the significance of speeding up the footage then slowing it down again so not make the clip overly long?

[mjr]

What's the significance of speeding up the footage then slowing it down again so not make the clip overly long?

That's the main thing - the rammer does stop in the middle of the road on the blind bend junction for a surprisingly long time, nearly two minutes. Location is http://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.39 ... ,-9.31p,1z

[thirdcrank]

IMO there's a difference between footage submitted as evidence, which has to be kosher, and something aired on the web for general viewing which can be edited for clarity, preferably with that being made obvious, as it is here.

The right to have a CPS decision reviewed is just one more thing that they introduced without telling me. I've had to look it up. I had assumed it would only be available for the most serious cases, but that isn't so. The offence has to have a victim (as defined in the relevant rules) and they can ask for a review.

In the context of cyclists' headcam footage - which is probably the main interest of this case to a cycling forum - the right to a review only extends to decisions taken by the CPS. If a decision is taken by the police, whether or not they have CPS advice, this system does not apply.

CPS Guidelines:-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses ... x.html#a04

Thread to needle in PDF:-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs ... e_2016.pdf

According to my original link, the police thought it amounted to dangerous driving, which has a right to trial by jury. The publicity gained by this being featured on the BBC New www may not improve the chances of a fair trial.

[reohn2]

What's the significance of speeding up the footage then slowing it down again so not make the clip overly long?

That's the main thing - the rammer does stop in the middle of the road on the blind bend junction for a surprisingly long time, nearly two minutes. Location is http://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.39 ... ,-9.31p,1z

I'm aware of that,what's the significance though?

[danhopgood]

Totally inexcusable behaviour and I think a prosecution is warranted, but the video, significantly in my view, didn't include the roundabout incident that the "innocent party" references. The X5 driver says he "needed" to accelerate to keep safe. I'm suspicious of that statement as going straight ahead at the roundabout he could have just given way to the Focus overtaking - albeit the Focus shouldn't have overtaken there.

My take is the X5 driver took offence at the Focus using a roundabout as an overtaking opportunity and used is large, powerful, intimidating vehicle to accelerate very hard to keep ahead of the focus and caused the Focus to run out of road. And he did that with his two kids in the back.

[thirdcrank]

In general video footage does not stand alone in that the "cameraman" would normally give evidence about what happened and that would be corroborated by their film. I think that's something that's sometimes overlooked by people reporting incidents to the police ie a report of an incident which the police think doesn't merit investigation isn't changed by having footage.

[mercalia]

No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on

"A motorist who was seen making a U-turn before driving straight at a car carrying two children will face no prosecution action.

The video was captured by Jonathan Steward as he was travelling with his son and daughter on the A140 between Diss and Norwich.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there was "not sufficient evidence" to establish who was driving the other vehicle. "


"In this case, despite the presence of dashcam video, the specialist prosecutor who reviewed the case concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish who was driving the vehicle involved in this incident and the original decision not to prosecute was upheld."

really - it needs to be made an offence for the registered driver to refuse to tell authorities that information? A heavy penalty - why cant the subverting the course of justice be applied here as thats whats happened? Really that "specialist prosecutor" seems to be exceedingly lacking in imagination and obtuse?. God help us all now, even if you do have a cam of what happened to you - the message sent is dont stop at an accident then they cant prove you did it?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672

[thirdcrank]

The earlier discussion is here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=113323


[Mod: threads merged]

[Username]

In cases of speeding, the registered keeper is fined if no details of who was driving are submitted. Why couldnt they prosecute the registered keeper in this case? Could the registered keeper prove beyond reasonable doubt he or she was elsewhere? Was the car stolen or TWOCed?

[Cyril Haearn]

What positions do the vehicles involved (and thus their drivers) have in the pecking order or hierarchy?

[pete75]

Could the registered keeper prove beyond reasonable doubt he or she was elsewhere?

It's guilt that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt not innocence.

For a prosecution to be started there must be reasonable evidence that a known individual may have broken the law. In this case there appears to be evidence that the law was broken but no evidence as to whom may have broken it. Without that it's impossible to prosecute.