Police using dash cam footage

[Grandad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40996609/motorists-using-dash-cams-to-inform-on-dodgy-drivers

I wonder if they will prosecute solely on the dash cam evidence (and is a helmet camera a dash cam )

[Username]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40996609/motorists-using-dash-cams-to-inform-on-dodgy-drivers

I wonder if they will prosecute solely on the dash cam evidence (and is a helmet camera a dash cam )

Are people literally having strokes and heart attacks at the wheel in that film? For most species, survival instinct is intrinsic. Basically they don't fly, run or otherwise deliberately collide with things. Or are people lacking said phenomena?

[gogledd58]

North Wales Police have been running 'Operation SNAP' for some time and they have advised cyclists that they will take helmet cam footage. I was in touch with the NWP Officer at about the same time as West Midlands Police were educating drivers in regards to 'close passing' and he advised that helmet camera footage of close passing would be used and action taken against dangerous driving.

[The utility cyclist]

Given we had dashcam footage of a motorist attacking a family in a car and the CPS said not enough evidence don't hold your breath!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672
We had a vovlo rear end a cyclist and the police did nothing and so many other cases.
It's utterly meaningless.

[Grandad]

I wonder what would have been the decision if this had happened in Wales - looks as though justice could be a postcode lottery like the NHS

[baka_cirno]

Given we had dashcam footage of a motorist attacking a family in a car and the CPS said not enough evidence don't hold your breath!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672
We had a vovlo rear end a cyclist and the police did nothing and so many other cases.
It's utterly meaningless.

It's worth remembering that it is CPS and not the police who decide to prosecute.

While dash cams may not land people a criminal sentence, it is worth remembering that they help greatly with insurance claims and civil cases.

[thirdcrank]

If this is a genuine policy of investigating this type of footage with a view to prosecution where appropriate, I'd welcome it. I'm wary of policing by media release. I can only go on what I've read but from the statement by the then ACPO head of Roads Policing to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Charade, to the reports of individual cameramen, there seems to be a lot of no-can-do. Just so long as it's not a centralised fobbing off unit.

I hope that if there's any feedback from forum members using this scheme they'll post on here about their experience.

[mjr]

We had a vovlo rear end a cyclist and the police did nothing and so many other cases.

Do you have a link, please?

[Postboxer]

I assume they meant the one in Nottingham, here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35516450

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=103392&hilit=reginald+scott

Which was discussed on here. The problem seemed to be the police just didn't investigate it urgently, it seems from that report that they just sent them a letter asking who was driving. If they had been assaulted with a baseball bat and caused the same injuries, I would hope the police would have figured out who was in the car the same day and met them in person. I find it curious that the person fined for not supplying the driver's details, hasn't been named and shamed in the press.

[mjr]

I've just captured two incidents on handlebar camera this weekend (years of almost nothing while using a camera, then two in two days!) and reported them to Norfolk Constabulary's equivalent of Operation Snap. There was a fairly swift reply to ask for the footage and statements, but they didn't send the statement guide and example mentioned on the web report form so I've asked for that and I'm now waiting for it.

Updates to follow, probably, but no details of the incidents until the police/legal process finishes - hope you understand.

[mjr]

Initial thoughts:

• Keep a copy of whatever you put in the web form because they ask you to rekey it into a form.
• They warn you to "Be aware that ALL offences will be dealt with. It is your responsibility as a driver to uphold the law (i.e. not commit offences yourself)." I think that probably discourages submissions from cyclists. I've tried to keep up to date with the law and I'm pretty sure I committed no offence, but it makes me hesitate because it's been a long time since I passed my driving tests and even longer since I did cycling proficiency. I've heard more than once from cyclists that they've not reported collisions to the police because they fear being prosecuted on the word of the motorist when - as far as I can tell - it was pretty sure they did nothing wrong and the motorist did.
• Uploading videos to the police's dropbox is shockingly slow. A bit over 3 hours to upload 5 minutes video.
• Bad luck comes in threes, so get three cards for the camera! Today, unusually cycling back during school run time, with both my main card and my spare being stored as evidence, I suffered a less common left hook while pulling out of a T-junction (no collision mainly because I didn't trust the motorist not indicating), plus I witnessed a speedy pavement motorist from about 5m away, but I had no camera running because I'd no suitable cards left! I've caught pavement motorists on camera before, but not from close enough to get a clear number plate image - I would have reported that one because I think pavement motoring is a huge problem here, with loads of tyre tracks along the pavements.

[thirdcrank]

... [*] They warn you to "Be aware that ALL offences will be dealt with. It is your responsibility as a driver to uphold the law (i.e. not commit offences yourself)." I think that probably discourages submissions from cyclists. I've tried to keep up to date with the law and I'm pretty sure I committed no offence, but it makes me hesitate because it's been a long time since I passed my driving tests and even longer since I did cycling proficiency. I've heard more than once from cyclists that they've not reported collisions to the police because they fear being prosecuted on the word of the motorist when - as far as I can tell - it was pretty sure they did nothing wrong and the motorist did. ...

The advice from the police here seems obvious to me and remember that it's addressed primarily to drivers submitting dashcam footage. All they are saying is you can't pick and choose which bits of footage you want dealing with. There have been several times over the years when we've had footage posted on here and I've posted along those lines. eg on one occasion, I had the temerity to point this out to M'learned friend MP QC. IIRC he replied that if he were to be prosecuted for whatever it was I pointed out, he'd expect an absolute discharge.

Found it:-
viewtopic.php?p=355069#p355069

From my own experience of drivers in the early days of mobile phones, some drivers who were unhappy about another driver's driving expected to ring 999 and then settle down to a chase relaying details to the police control room. I'd not want drivers doing their own amateur "Police Chase" footage with a dashcam.

[mjr]

... [*] They warn you to "Be aware that ALL offences will be dealt with. It is your responsibility as a driver to uphold the law (i.e. not commit offences yourself)." I think that probably discourages submissions from cyclists. [...]

The advice from the police here seems obvious to me and remember that it's addressed primarily to drivers submitting dashcam footage. All they are saying is you can't pick and choose which bits of footage you want dealing with. [...]

And all I am saying is that I think that probably discourages submissions from cyclists. There are persistent rumours locally of cyclists being ticketed for such silly non-offences as cycling along certain streets which are physically impossible for motorists to drive cars along (but there is either no prohibition or no prohibition on non-motorised vehicles), cycling along cycleways which have legally slightly too large a gap between blue signs, or cycling across Toucan crossings. I write rumours because the local cycling campaign hasn't conclusively proved any ticket because usually it's paid by the time we get to hear about it and the payer just wants it to end - but even some veteran volunteers have been stopped for cycling along some of those streets or stopped and told they must fit a rear rim brake to their fixed-wheel bike, but those ones were not ticketed.

Would it be right if pretty blatant bad driving (like today's high-speed pavement motoring, to use an example that I won't be taking further) goes unpunished because camera users are unwilling to risk getting expensive fixed penalty notices for non-offences or even minor offences by submitting the footage?

I'm not sure the police have got the right balance there... but I guess we'll see how much footage they get in the next few months.

[thirdcrank]

And all I'm saying is that the police can't be expected to ignore evidence of offending. I fancy this advice wasn't the result of some legal eagle pontificating; it's more likely been cobbled together by some experienced but frustrated traffic officers who have had footage from self-righteous drivers who couldn't see that their credibility as witnesses was undermined.

The underlying problem here - as I've said so many times before - is that the enforcement of traffic offences is no longer a priority. Dealing with some other types of offence is now seen a a greater priority than was once the case. I doubt if that will ever be reversed.

I'll give this recent example as a bit of a case study on priorities. I know you are familiar with it because yours was the next following post.

viewtopic.php?p=1223279#p1223279

I'll quote it here to save anybody interested from looking

Having been using an "always on" camera on the bike for the last three years, I had my first proper "incident" the other day. A car gave me zero space pulling away from a pedestrian crossing where I had given way. I gave him a warning wave, he kept coming. I tapped his car, following which he tried to swerve me off the road and then stopped, got out and punched me as I rode past. All on video. Police currently saying "not in public interest to take further" without even looking at the video evidence. That's the state of the nation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdzH8VnZH6LCFTXCJDA9SuXNrbpwEmpG/view?ts=5aba0a59

Once upon a time, section 42 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 would have prevented the police from prosecuting the assailant. ie If the assailant had been identified, the victim of the assault would have been given their details and advised to take out a summons. "Referred to Justices" as it was known in Leeds or RtoJ. Not any more. Had that been me and had I hoped to see police action, I'd have been raising the issue of why dealing with personal violence was not in the public interest and not therefore worth investigating.

[Cunobelin]

... [*] They warn you to "Be aware that ALL offences will be dealt with. It is your responsibility as a driver to uphold the law (i.e. not commit offences yourself)." I think that probably discourages submissions from cyclists. I've tried to keep up to date with the law and I'm pretty sure I committed no offence, but it makes me hesitate because it's been a long time since I passed my driving tests and even longer since I did cycling proficiency. I've heard more than once from cyclists that they've not reported collisions to the police because they fear being prosecuted on the word of the motorist when - as far as I can tell - it was pretty sure they did nothing wrong and the motorist did. ...

The advice from the police here seems obvious to me and remember that it's addressed primarily to drivers submitting dashcam footage. All they are saying is you can't pick and choose which bits of footage you want dealing with. There have been several times over the years when we've had footage posted on here and I've posted along those lines. eg on one occasion, I had the temerity to point this out to M'learned friend MP QC. IIRC he replied that if he were to be prosecuted for whatever it was I pointed out, he'd expect an absolute discharge.

Found it:-
viewtopic.php?p=355069#p355069

From my own experience of drivers in the early days of mobile phones, some drivers who were unhappy about another driver's driving expected to ring 999 and then settle down to a chase relaying details to the police control room. I'd not want drivers doing their own amateur "Police Chase" footage with a dashcam.

In both cases I have been involved in the Police actually took the entire card - apparently having raw data improves the "chain of evidence" and helps avoid claims of doctoring or editing down the line

One was a car that failed to stop at a junction and "T-boned" the car on the main road, the second was a car that did a right turn, straight into a cyclist crossing the junction