"Cyclists use cameras to capture dangerous drivers"

[EnquiringMind]

I'm going to post this here even though it's about helmets... hopefully someone can move it to the helmet subforum for me if necessary.

Cyclists use cameras to capture dangerous drivers (Edinburgh Evening News)

My companion piece (with original footage): Video protection on the roads

As always... don't read the EEN comments - you have been warned

[Geriatrix]

I'm with you 100% on this, but how do you go about getting the police to take video evidence seriously?

[kwackers]

I'm with you 100% on this, but how do you go about getting the police to take video evidence seriously?

Perhaps I'm being naive but recent events and all the publicity make me hopeful that perhaps they'll be forced to start taking it more seriously.

[Geriatrix]

Perhaps I'm being naive but recent events and all the publicity make me hopeful that perhaps they'll be forced to start taking it more seriously.

I think its heading that way, at least in some areas, not in Edinburgh it seems. The MET uses the YouTube footage link to warn the driver but I don't know if they have used video evidence without supporting witnesses to prosecute yet. The recent assault incident certainly put some pressure on the police to take the evidence seriously but I hope it doesn't take scale of incident to prompt change.

No doubt TC will comment but ACPO still doesn't accept video evidence, their representative said as much at the all parliamentary enquiry.

EDIT: Perhaps ACPO should be challenged as to whether they would have used the video footage used to catch the Boston bombers.

[Geriatrix]

As always... don't read the EEN comments - you have been warned

Blimey, even the daily wail comments are more balanced than that.

[thirdcrank]

... how do you go about getting the police to take video evidence seriously?

First, you accept that in some cases headcam video evidence has been used in prosecutions.

Beyond that, I'd say there are two prongs to this.

One is procedural. I'll suggest that a lot of the people who form the point of contact between a would-be complainant and the police service are not trained in the niceties of dealing with this sort of evidence. Then, no matter how good the evidence, if the alleged offence is not a priority, it's not going to get a lot of attention. (I've posted before along the lines that if you went into a police station with footage of a murder etc., you'd be seeing a senior investigating officer before you could say "Dixon of Dock Green." Explanation: detecting murders is a priority; then, the person on the front counter doesn't need to know how to deal with evidence because the SIO will know a man who can. )

IMO, the answer to the query is "campaigning."
==========================================================
kwackers got in before me.

This did come up at the recent charade ( sorry All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Inquiry ) but Martin Porter seems to be the only one to have noticed. I've read the report and I've not found in mentioned. As always, I'm open to being corrected. As I posted then, I suspect that this was some sort of crossed wires during the proceedings. It needs somebody with the clout to get a reply to write to ACPO for clarification.

[EnquiringMind]

There have already been numerous convictions (or lesser enforcement action) thanks to video evidence, regardless of what the ACPO may have said... that's not to say that there isn't a massive issue there and they need to be taken to task, but it does happen anyway.

As is obvious, the first time cyclists capture footage of a police officer being assaulted or anything else that doesn't involve protection of cyclists their footage will be sought like gold dust. The real issue is that cyclist and pedestrian safety almost seems to be actively deprioritised by the police and judicial system.

I don't have a ready answer. If I bothered to watch back footage from central Edinburgh I daresay I could make half a dozen reports of dangerous driving for every journey, but life is too short to let them affect you. Even in this case I would have been happy enough to turn a blind eye had the driver been contrite.

[thirdcrank]

I don't know the carry on in Scotland, especially since there's now a single police force, but in E&W the ACPO line is still significant.

Here's the contentious bit:

... However I found myself unable to understand, still less agree with, his view that action could only be taken against a motorist who had endangered (rather than actually run down) a cyclist if the careless (or dangerous) driving had been witnessed by a police officer. It is almost as odd as Ms Davenport of ACPO's assertion that she had legal advice that criminal proceedings based upon video evidence were unlikely to succeed. (My emphasis)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... group.html

Suzette Davenport, who has recently transferred on promotion to chief constable from Northants to Gloucestershire, is the ACP0 lead on Roads Policing. Whether she is right or wrong isn't really the point: what she says is likely to influence traffic policing throughout E&W. IMO, it needs clarification.

[Geriatrix]

The real issue is that cyclist and pedestrian safety almost seems to be actively deprioritised by the police and judicial system.

Probably the result of cuts and ignorance.

It's frustrating because it flies against all the principals of safety and accident prevention established Frank Bird and Herbert Heinrich. Frank Bird established a direct mathematical relationship between near-miss events and KSI's so if you don't record and manage the near-misses then measuring the KSI's becomes a certainty. This isn't controversial or ground breaking stuff, it's well known and used by the Civil Aviation Authority (amongst others including HSE) but it seems not good enough for road safety.

So we record the KSI's instead.

[EnquiringMind]

Great point.

Whenever I see an HGV turning left without indicating I imagine a potential cyclist death. It would be easy to use camera monitoring to check for use of indicators at trouble junctions, for instance, then slam offenders with a fixed penalty for driving without due care.

Instead we wait for a death and then essentially have to take the driver's word for it that they weren't doing anything wrong (the very idea that we've seen drivers who kill twice boggles the mind)

[Shootist]

The MET uses the YouTube footage link to warn the driver but I don't know if they have used video evidence without supporting witnesses to prosecute yet.No doubt TC will comment but ACPO still doesn't accept video evidence, their representative said as much at the all parliamentary enquiry.

EDIT: Perhaps ACPO should be challenged as to whether they would have used the video footage used to catch the Boston bombers.

I think that one or two sped cameras have been used in prosecutions.

Very many people are prosecuted on the strength of video evidence, in particular city centre violence.

ACPO has no say in what evidence should or shouldn't be accepted.

Helmet camera evidence is no different from any other camera evidence. What is different is that on a number of occasions the camera footage doesn't prove what the user of the camera perceives it does. That and bone idle police officers.

[EnquiringMind]

Helmet camera evidence is no different from any other camera evidence. What is different is that on a number of occasions the camera footage doesn't prove what the user of the camera perceives it does. That and bone idle police officers.

This is a good point. In the case of the particular driver referenced in the OP, the video is not evidence that they were using the mobile at the time of the near-miss, however much I'd like it to be (from the PoV of getting it taken seriously).

Even though in my opinion it's very clear from the latter part of the footage that the mobile is being used, I could happily accept, indeed never expected, anyone to haul the accused up to the High Court. It would have satisfied me if their ear was bent by the local constabulary and they accepted a note had been placed on their record.

To be honest, it would even have satisfied me (relatively speaking) for a police officer to give the accusation enough time of day to watch the footage. Just once.

[thirdcrank]

... ACPO has no say in what evidence should or shouldn't be accepted. ...

That's true of course, but evidence that is not collected is never going to get to the stage of being considered. As the Police and Crime Commissioners get going, the influence of ACPO may well diminish but I've yet to see any signs of a PCC saying they want more attention paid to this.

[[XAP]Bob]

I've had a couple of incidents with the police, and they seem OK about using video evidence, but it has to be clear.

My recent assault secured a conviction from an independent witness to the end of the car chase - unfortunately I didn't have my cameras with me that day - and I've since upgraded to fixed dual cameras.

An older camera picked up some awful driving, but failed to pick up the brick that was thrown at me - so no luck there.

[iviehoff]

Helmet camera evidence is no different from any other camera evidence.

There is an important difference, and that is who was in control of capturing of the image. When the person in control of capturing of the image is a person involved in the case, the issue of admissibility of the evidence does have to be taken seriously, because in principle the person in charge of capturing the image has the power to be selective about what is recorded, or to frame it in a particular way. I think it is correct that whenever the image is captured by a participant in the incident, that proper consideration is given to whether what we see is a reliably neutral record. It should also be routine to check it hasn't been tampered with, whoever recorded it.