Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Bonefishblues
Posts: 8797
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Bonefishblues » 1 Jul 2018, 7:24pm

A woman scorned did for them

thirdcrank
Posts: 30860
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby thirdcrank » 1 Jul 2018, 9:39pm

I don't think anybody has directly linked to The National Dash Cam Safety Portal so here it is:
https://www.nextbase.co.uk/national-das ... ty-portal/

This has apparently been set up by dashcam supplier Nextbase, although it says it accepts footage from any type of device.

I see it appears to have endorsement from Cycling UK. Although it's called "National" not all forces use it. I tried my local force, West Yorkshire but it says not. Trying North Yorkshire - a force which seems more active in road policing - it brought up a link to a local road safety initiative. The site carries the logos of six police forces, ie four in Wales and two in England, including WMP which has reported success in dealing with footage submitted online.

User avatar
cyclemad
Posts: 180
Joined: 23 Jan 2018, 9:16pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby cyclemad » 1 Jul 2018, 11:07pm

I nearly got wiped out today - tried to report this to West Yorks Police - told them I had footage , stills etc...Got an email back saying just send pics to them ...nothing else...no contact to discuss this....Complete waste of time as usual

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Bez » 2 Jul 2018, 9:19am

will result in


Saying "doing X will result in Y" doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30860
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Jul 2018, 10:32am

There are problems with the HC

It's already been pointed out that the advice in Rule 163 to "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" is meaningless. The picture illustrating that advice doesn't help much. Rule 212 includes "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room" and that might usefully be qualified with "treat five feet as an absolute minimum." (I've suggested five feet because it's as near as dammit 1.5 metres but it sounds more and it's imperial measure.)

Then what? Unfortunately, in spite of its statutory status, the HC no longer seems to play much part in the enforcement of the criminal law. (That's in comparison with civil proceedings where the HC seems to be closely followed.) I'm not clear why that is so, but I can offer some suggestions. Once upon a time, police prosecutors relied heavily on the HC to build a case for any of the "bad driving" offences. Under the RTA 1960, the definitions were wordy and, therefore, open to wrangling.
2 Reckless, and dangerous, driving generally
(1) If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be liable— (Etc) ..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eli ... /2/enacted
In what I think was a valiant attempt to cut the crap, Lord Diplock, sitting in what used to be the House of Lords but would now be the Supreme Court, included the following in an approved form of words to be used when directiong a jury:-
It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Law ... 982%5D.php
That approach seems to have been followed in the RTA 1988 which I've repeatedly quoted before:
2A Meaning of dangerous driving.
(1) For the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
There's nothing saying that reference should be made to the provisions of the HC.

I think it's fair to say that some people have a double-ended spyglass for the HC: it's strictly mandatory for others, but little more than ill-conceived guidance for themselves.

By coincidence, the establishment of the CPS with a corporate belief that the criminal law was not the way to deal with the majority of crashes and the slithering down the slippery slope began. This was reinforced by the need to redeploy people to deal with the increased prioritisation of personal violence eg the replacement of s42 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, empowering the police to prosecute cases of common assault and traffic enforcement suffered. That was aggravated with substantial reductions in police numbers. (For anybody who has Teresa May as a pin-up, it's laughable to pontificate on the collapse in traffic policing.)

Steady rider
Posts: 2288
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Steady rider » 2 Jul 2018, 11:29am

Reply to Bez

For police vehicles I think the technical side of the cameras and estimating the clearance would be OK after suitable testing.


It may be appropriate for a police vehicle to have two cameras to give a better estimate of passing distance. A single cameras may give a rough estimate but tests may reveal if two cameras would provide a more accurate estimate and the distances checked against other methods.

Steady rider
Posts: 2288
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Steady rider » 2 Jul 2018, 11:53am

Bez wrote

Steady rider wrote:
One issue to bear in mind is the fatality rate for the UK - 21 per billion km v 8 the Netherlands and 11 Germany.

CperKM.pngSafety in numbers.
https://ecf.com/files/wp-content/upload ... harter.pdf

Gaz wrote
UK and France both shown at 75km cycled per person per annum. UK has a casualty rate of 29 fatalities per billion km cycled, France 61 fatalities. I'm not sure what that says about close passing laws in France but it doesn't paint a picture to me of France as a cycling utopia.

Figures for the Netherlands and Denmark probably reflect their segragated infrastructure.


The figures I quoted came from a 2018 report, ITF Roundtable on Cycling Safety
29-30 January 2018, Paris, see Table 1, France is shown as 28, so that seems a big reduction from the 61 you quote from an earlier report.
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/ ... ummary.pdf
according to the figures the UK has shown some reduction, 29 to 21, but France has more than halved their fatality rate, 61 to 28.

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Bez » 2 Jul 2018, 1:37pm

It may be appropriate for a police vehicle to have two cameras to give a better estimate of passing distance.


Great, so by merely doubling the cost of some police car equipment we can slightly improve distance estimation for all the close passes that occur directly in front of a police car, rather than relying on the current highly enforceable legislation that requires no strict distance calculation. Splendid ;)

Not sure why the subsequent post has "Bez wrote" at the top of it, given that I didn't write any of it ;)

Steady rider
Posts: 2288
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Steady rider » 2 Jul 2018, 2:06pm

Sorry Bez for mixing you up with Gaz. Using camera evidence would I assume be an additional part not preventing other evidence being used.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14165
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby gaz » 2 Jul 2018, 8:01pm

Steady rider wrote:The figures I quoted came from a 2018 report, ITF Roundtable on Cycling Safety ...
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/ ... ummary.pdf

Thanks for linking the source of your data.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16726
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby mjr » 2 Jul 2018, 8:46pm

thirdcrank wrote:I don't think anybody has directly linked to The National Dash Cam Safety Portal so here it is:
https://www.nextbase.co.uk/national-das ... ty-portal/

This has apparently been set up by dashcam supplier Nextbase, although it says it accepts footage from any type of device.

I see it appears to have endorsement from Cycling UK.

It's disappointing to see CUK endorsing this sort of exploitation of unsuspecting witnesses:"we may contact you in response to your message or subsequently in the future. This may include periodically sending promotional emails about new products, special offers or other information, which we think you may find interesting, using the email address you have provided." and "When you upload or post content to our site (including, but without limitation dashcam videos), you grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-free and transferable licence to use, exploit, copy, store, disclose, reproduce, publish, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and otherwise use that content for any purpose across any media including, but not limited to, promoting the site and its content, promoting our business, and promoting our products and services."

You too can see your video sold to appear on endless clip shows which you'll be informed of by email...
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Bez » 2 Jul 2018, 9:32pm

You may be interested to note that Hampshire have a portal in beta which is delivered as a police (ie government) service and therefore doesn't have the rather concerning IPR issues that Nextbase introduces.

https://beta.hampshire.police.uk/ro/rep ... -incident/

thirdcrank
Posts: 30860
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Jul 2018, 9:51pm

mjr wrote: ... It's disappointing to see CUK endorsing this sort of exploitation of unsuspecting witnesses:"we may contact you in response to your message or subsequently in the future. This may include periodically sending promotional emails about new products, special offers or other information, which we think you may find interesting, using the email address you have provided." and "When you upload or post content to our site (including, but without limitation dashcam videos), you grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-free and transferable licence to use, exploit, copy, store, disclose, reproduce, publish, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and otherwise use that content for any purpose across any media including, but not limited to, promoting the site and its content, promoting our business, and promoting our products and services."

You too can see your video sold to appear on endless clip shows which you'll be informed of by email...

Well spotted!
thirdcrank wrote: ... The dashcam article seems to be a plug for Nextbase dashcams. ..

Having posted that about the newspaper article displayed as an attachment higher up, I felt I should explore the content a bit further, but obviously I didn't explore far enough. While I'd never expect something like this to have been motivated by altruism, I hadn't expected that. As I mentioned above, one of the few police forces whose logo appears is WMP, the main drivers ( :oops: ) of the close pass / mats initiative. As part of an update on that, they have also recently reported what sounded like quite a lot of prosecutions based on third-party video evidence. This puts that in a different light. This is that other thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1244244#p1244244

thirdcrank
Posts: 30860
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Jul 2018, 7:34am

Bez wrote:You may be interested to note that Hampshire have a portal in beta which is delivered as a police (ie government) service and therefore doesn't have the rather concerning IPR issues that Nextbase introduces.

https://beta.hampshire.police.uk/ro/rep ... -incident/

I've had a look at that and without anything to report, I've only looked at the opening page which seems to say it's a way of reporting incidents on line. With anything like this, one problem historically is individual police forces doing their own thing: spending £££ separately to develop something similar but incompatible with all the rest. It may seem like nitpicking but I'd describe this as "a police (ie public) service" rather than anything to do with the government. The government is generally happy to hide behind the operational independence of the police to avoid getting a grip. The piecemeal development of IT systems by separate police forces and other criminal justice organisations such as the CPS, Ministry of Justice (and the formerly independent Clerks to the Justices) is one of the reasons that the dreaded paperwork persists as a problem.

The Nextbase publicity machine is working away and this is on MSN this morning:

New online portal lets you send dash cam evidence directly to police
This claims that nineteen police forces are now signed up to the Nextbase "not for profit" system ie almost half of police forces, and FWIW, the list includes Hampshire.

The NDSP has the support of road safety charity Brake, and bicycle charity Cycling UK. Joshua Harris from Brake called the portal a “fantastic initiative” and an “elegant solution, which enables the police to process this vital data without wasting their scarce resources.” Duncan Dollimore from Cycling UK echoed those sentiments, saying the NDSP is “a one-stop shop for the collation of evidence our forces can rely upon.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/new ... spartandhp

Richard D
Posts: 269
Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 6:16pm

Re: Close-pass prevention - Well I never!!!

Postby Richard D » 3 Jul 2018, 8:43pm

mjr wrote:It's disappointing to see CUK endorsing this sort of exploitation of unsuspecting witnesses:"we may contact you in response to your message or subsequently in the future. This may include periodically sending promotional emails about new products, special offers or other information, which we think you may find interesting, using the email address you have provided." and "When you upload or post content to our site (including, but without limitation dashcam videos), you grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-free and transferable licence to use, exploit, copy, store, disclose, reproduce, publish, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and otherwise use that content for any purpose across any media including, but not limited to, promoting the site and its content, promoting our business, and promoting our products and services."

You too can see your video sold to appear on endless clip shows which you'll be informed of by email...

Not sure that's correct.
"Please note Section 10 (Uploading content to our site) and Section 11 (Rights you licence) in our Website Terms of Use do NOT apply to this tool. Nextbase do not have access to see any videos uploaded or any of the personal information provided when submitting an incident."