[2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
fimm
Posts: 328
Joined: 7 Sep 2009, 3:29pm

[2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby fimm » 29 Oct 2010, 12:44pm

I thought that this thread from the "CycleChat" forums might be of interest to some on here:
http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/71725-co ... -evidence/
To quote part of the opening post of that thread:
The result is the driver being found guilty of careless driving, pleading guilty to public order offences but being found not guilty of assault. ...There would have been no chance of a prosecution without the video evidence.


I know nothing more about the case than what is in the thread, and I have not seen the video as I can't access YouTube at work.
Of course it's a race...

User avatar
BSRU
Posts: 265
Joined: 7 Jul 2010, 9:53am

Re: Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby BSRU » 29 Oct 2010, 2:29pm

I have watched it and the van driver has major issues including his lack of driving ability.


Dan K
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:57pm
Location: South Glos.

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby Dan K » 29 Oct 2010, 3:12pm

I followed the link to watch the video clip, horrific the violence that awaits you out on the road; almost need military style self defence training along with the mandatory reflectors that accompany every new bike purchase.

Anyway, on a lighter note, I always fear clicking on those links as inevitably your attention gets drawn to the countless video links alongside the one you're interested in.
From the above link I ended up yonks later watching this: LEE EVANS ON CYCLING -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv0l2tQR ... re=related
- at first you assume it's a documentary clip about an Australian athlete with a familiar sounding name but the first 60 seconds are sheer 'Norman Wisdom'. :D :D :D
Last edited by Dan K on 29 Oct 2010, 3:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
'
Stop talking while I'm interrupting you!

irc
Posts: 4581
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby irc » 29 Oct 2010, 3:20pm

While not in any way defending the driver's conduct would an alternative way of dealing with the incident not have been to slow down slightly and let him go past once it was clear he was overtaking dangerously?

Good result at court though.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28682
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Oct 2010, 3:47pm

While this thread was briefly locked, I went and enrolled on cycle chat just so I could get my oar in. Whatever the whys and wherefores, it shows that a helmetcam provides excellent evidence.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby hubgearfreak » 29 Oct 2010, 4:05pm

irc wrote: would an alternative way of dealing with the incident not have been to slow down slightly and let him go past once it was clear he was overtaking dangerously?


that's right, but it's to give into bullying. you've got to have the patience of a saint to not have a go back occasionally.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28682
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Oct 2010, 4:28pm

I've watched this a few times and I suppose it's always possible to find some "what ifs." The sound track isn't brilliant and this computer has only tiny speakers; I presume the trigger for WVM's eventual angry behaviour was the cyclist deliberately hitting the side of the van. It was only after the noise of a bang that the driver stopped and pretty suddenly at that. He didn't appear to be investigating if he had been 'in collision' with the cyclist.

I've had pleant of those moments myself when fear turns to anger. I'd not strike a passing vehicle - mainly from fear of losing control of my bike. It would be naive to be surprised at a reaction like that from a driver.

Overall, I'm pleased to see the goodies come out in the lead.

Velo
Posts: 112
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 1:33pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby Velo » 29 Oct 2010, 4:47pm

irc wrote:While not in any way defending the driver's conduct would an alternative way of dealing with the incident not have been to slow down slightly and let him go past once it was clear he was overtaking dangerously?Good result at court though.


Maybe, maybe not. I recall a similar situation when a WVM overtook me too close to a left turn, I started to brake to let the guy come past as he was close (and I was not sure of the line he was going to take through the turn) but he then had to brake hard in order to negotiate the corner. What actually happened was that we ended up taking the corner a few inches apart and I was pushed into the kerb. With hindsight, I wish I had accelerated, not hit the brakes.

sirmy
Posts: 591
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby sirmy » 29 Oct 2010, 4:53pm

Dan K wrote:I followed the link to watch the video clip, horrific the violence that awaits you out on the road; almost need military style self defence training along with the mandatory reflectors that accompany every new bike purchase.

Anyway, on a lighter note, I always fear clicking on those links as inevitably your attention gets drawn to the countless video links alongside the one you're interested in.
From the above link I ended up yonks later watching this: LEE EVANS ON CYCLING -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv0l2tQR ... re=related
- at first you assume it's a documentary clip about an Australian athlete with a familiar sounding name but the first 60 seconds are sheer 'Norman Wisdom'. :D :D :D



Particularly liked the shouts of "Stop peddling Lee!" :D

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby hubgearfreak » 29 Oct 2010, 5:13pm

thirdcrank wrote:WVM's eventual angry behaviour was the cyclist deliberately hitting the side of the van.


i don't think it's clear whether the van driver hit the cyclist, or the cyclist thumped the van.
not beyond reasonable doubt, anyhow

irc
Posts: 4581
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby irc » 29 Oct 2010, 5:25pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:WVM's eventual angry behaviour was the cyclist deliberately hitting the side of the van.


i don't think it's clear whether the van driver hit the cyclist, or the cyclist thumped the van.
not beyond reasonable doubt, anyhow


Well as the OP says in the cyclechat thread "I freely admitted at all stages that I hit the van." that seems fairly clear cut to me.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28682
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Oct 2010, 5:36pm

I think that this is probably one of those cases where once upon a time, after dealing with the defendant, some magistrates - and I can think of one stipe in particular - who would have called the cyclist forward and asked if he agreed to be bound over. (The alternative being a place at HMP Armley pending a change of heart.) That medieval procedure was outlawed by the European Court of Human Rights or some such, which is why it doesn't happen any more, but it was a good way of letting somebody know that their own behaviour could have been better.

irc
Posts: 4581
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby irc » 29 Oct 2010, 5:36pm

Velo wrote:
irc wrote:While not in any way defending the driver's conduct would an alternative way of dealing with the incident not have been to slow down slightly and let him go past once it was clear he was overtaking dangerously?Good result at court though.


Maybe, maybe not. I recall a similar situation when a WVM overtook me too close to a left turn, I started to brake to let the guy come past as he was close (and I was not sure of the line he was going to take through the turn) but he then had to brake hard in order to negotiate the corner. What actually happened was that we ended up taking the corner a few inches apart and I was pushed into the kerb. With hindsight, I wish I had accelerated, not hit the brakes.


It's hard to judge a CCTV clip as speeds and distances are hard to judge. but the nutter in the van was alongside the cyclist for about 10 seconds on the approach to and exit from the junction before he pulled in and got his van thumped. I think I'd be getting myself out from alongside him sooner than that. But I wasn't there so who knows? Approaching any fast left turn like that I'd want to be in primary without any vehicle alongside. If that mean letting an aggressive driver ahead, so be it.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

Ellieb
Posts: 752
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: [2nd] Conviction based on headcam evidence

Postby Ellieb » 29 Oct 2010, 6:28pm

thirdcrank wrote:I think that this is probably one of those cases where once upon a time, after dealing with the defendant, some magistrates - and I can think of one stipe in particular - who would have called the cyclist forward and asked if he agreed to be bound over. (The alternative being a place at HMP Armley pending a change of heart.) That medieval procedure was outlawed by the European Court of Human Rights or some such, which is why it doesn't happen any more, but it was a good way of letting somebody know that their own behaviour could have been better.



Good idea. Blame the victim