Cycling UK Forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31020803

The cyclist is also a professional driver, presumably this demands more respect from the authorities.

There really does need to be some sort of overhaul on the use of video footage by cyclists or at least a clarification on it's use.

I've sent footage to the police of illegal and dangerous driving and been told they can't use it yet in some publicised cases it has been used leaving me no clearer on what the actual legal stance is

It does say in the link that this cameraman's footage has led to some fifty prosecutions. Depending on what period that covers, it's a lot. I'm hoping to watch this, but as it's not my local BBC channel, I presume I'll have to use IPlayer. I'm no expert on that and I don't know, for example, whether I can watch the Inside Out broadcast in another region.

We need to know the secret of this chap's success. Part of it may be that he's selective about what he submits to the police.

On the subject of getting some guidelines about this, several years ago there was a media item about the Metropolitan Police looking at establishing some. I posted on here that we should get involved and I was shot down in flames.

======================================================
Edit to add

April 2008:-
viewtopic.php?p=95345#p95345

According to this report in the DM police were actually actively seeking video footage..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... badly.html

How about some form of reward scheme to help us pay for our cameras?

Postboxer wrote:How about some form of reward scheme to help us pay for our cameras?

Now that would be good.

Or even a "police camera loan scheme" where they loan the cameras, and the video is uploaded directly to the police...

With the low cost and the availability it would be quite easy for all new vehicles to be equipped with front, back and driver video cameras/recorders, as well as gas data logging of speed and direction.

The safety benefits are, I think, rather obvious as it would be rather hard to deny; mobile phone use, speeding, tailgating, etc. Etc. When it's all logged and recorded. I somehow think it is unlikely to happen though, the likelihood of drivers accepted such scrutiny of their behaviour would be like expecting turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas

Vitara wrote:With the low cost and the availability it would be quite easy for all new vehicles to be equipped with front, back and driver video cameras/recorders, as well as gas data logging of speed and direction.

The safety benefits are, I think, rather obvious as it would be rather hard to deny; mobile phone use, speeding, tailgating, etc. Etc. When it's all logged and recorded. I somehow think it is unlikely to happen though, the likelihood of drivers accepted such scrutiny of their behaviour would be like expecting turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas

But capitalism will help us here. Insurance companies offering discounts to drivers who have such devices will make them commonplace, and the police will be required to standardise their handling of privately held video evidence in traffic incidents.

I've watched it on iPlayer (always pushing out the frontiers of technology, that's me )

As is often the case with this type of programme, the editing seemed designed to achieve a bit of sensationalism rather than any sort of clarity.

The most significant bit for me was when the interviewer asked the traffic patrol sergeant about the police use of this type of evidence. He fidgeted rather uncomfortably and replied along the lines that he had dealt with several such cases himself but that the police didn't want to be "inundated" with them. (Don't ring us, we won't ring you if I can adapt a well-known phrase or saying.)

The "fifty prosecutions" remark was made several times in the commentary and I'm not at all clear about what really happened there, especially in the light of the comments of the traffic sergeant. There was sickening footage, replayed a couple of times, of the rider- cameraman being assaulted by a driver (who was subsequently cautioned.) The suggestion was made by the reporter that anybody submitting footage to the police was a snitch (my word.) We were shown yet again an unmarked police lorry being used to film offending truckers. One was detected driving handsfree ie not holding the steering wheel and eating at the same time. He was stopped but it was unclear to me how he was dealt with. I suspect it was roadside advice only.

Anybody looking for tips on how to report alleged offending supported with headcam footage to the police will not find them here. IMO.

Postboxer wrote:How about some form of reward scheme to help us pay for our cameras?

In principle yes, but tbh there are also potential downsides. I've seen camera footage where cyclists seemed almost wifully to be putting themselves in danger IMHO. Would we want a "cash for videos" arrangement where there might be such a temptation?

I should point out that I invested in a camera last year, and have since obtained many hours of footage, including all my commutes during the summer months. I've left it off during the winter, because it's handlebar/stem mounted and there's no room for it alongside both the light and computer.

Perhaps I should figure out a way of mounting it along with the light, after all. I don't have a h*lmet and other means of head mounting have not so far worked out very well. And I don't fancy those handlebar-extension mounts (Topeak etc.). I suppose I could leave off the computer, seeing as it doesn't work anyway when the lights are on (the pulsing LEDs interfere with the radio signal).

Having said that: number of interesting 'incidents' I have captured with the camera, so far: nil.

Perhaps it's just that I don't go 'looking for trouble'.

661-Pete wrote:
Perhaps it's just that I don't go 'looking for trouble'.

It's great that the camera is having the desired effect-worth every penny, long may your count remain nil!

Maybe you're more tolerant and relaxed? I think if I had a camera it would almost be a full time job reporting bad driving but it would mainly be the little things that really hack me off, like not indicating.

Well, I suppose I had one or two 'borderlines' - like the Police car that I felt had left-hooked me - but I don't think I bothered to hang on to the footage: it's debatable whether it really was a left-hook or merely a left turn a bit too close in front of me. Anyway, I've discovered that editing the 'interesting' few seconds out of an hour-long video (which is about as much as the SD card will hold at a time) is a tedious business...

Of course, if I ever pick up anything worthy of reporting to the Police, they'll get the whole hour's-worth, straight off the SD card unedited and undoctored. Let them fast-forward through it to get to the interesting bit...

661-Pete wrote:I should point out that I invested in a camera last year, and have since obtained many hours of footage, including all my commutes during the summer months. I've left it off during the winter, because it's handlebar/stem mounted and there's no room for it alongside both the light and computer.

Mine's off at the moment, too. Mainly because it doesn't work well in low light and its (now aged) battery doesn't last as long in the cold.

I've asked my local police about it and my understanding is that they'd use camera footage for road rage type incidents, but are reluctant to suggest them for close passing and dangerous driving because they usually don't look as close or dangerous as they feel to riders.