Dashcam Footage Used By Police

[KTMsm]

I'm aware it happens but the numbers claimed seem high for Devon and Cornwall

"Thanks to the efforts of the public, we have been able to take action against almost 10,000 drivers who may have otherwise escaped prosecution"

https://www.visordown.com/news/general/thousands-b...

[KTMsm]

iidentifyaswoke said:

The police won't prosecute speeding based on third party footage.

Most of the reports the aforementioned s do are:
1. Mobile phone usage
2. Passing within 1.5 metres of their poncy bicycle
3. Driving/riding contrary to a road sign or road marking (no entry, wrong side of a keep left bollard, overtaking on double whites etc).

FYI I don't support bad driving or mobile phone use at all, I just don't like s who wish they were the Stasi living in East Germany, but have no roadcraft and make it a hobby to inform on their fellow citizens.

As a further FYI, it is lawful to overtake pedal cycles across double whites, provided the pedal cycle is travelling less than 10mph. 10mph is measured by a calibrated device, not the GPS on one of these s on a bicycle.

There is one on Twitter, "Warwickshire Cyclist" who will do a report anybody that does not cross fully onto the other side of the road when overtaking. I don't know how many of his reports the police act on, but he is another daily reporter who does it for a hobby.

To reitterate, few people will report anything, except a handful of camera cyclists.

Problem is I overtake on double whites multiple times a day, they are everywhere around here, on roads that used to be NSL

The other day in a 5 mile ride, I over took 4 cars all driving below 35 in a 50, on a wide country A road - I just can't sit there like a zombie

They were all absolutely safe to do but obviously illegal

[KTMsm]

Mandat said:

It's quite simple isn't it?

If it is necessary to enter the hatching so that an overtake can be performed, then it is necessary to enter the hatchings.

What other justification / explanation is required?

The police / CPS will argue that it wasn't necessary to overtake

They have the same argument if you leave your home and go outside to beat the crap out of a car thief, you didn't have to go outside and you shouldn't have used unnecessary force - You're supposed to watch them take it, get a crime number and claim on your insurance

Similarly, they expect you to follow the idiot doing 25 in a 50

[KTMsm]

Salted_Peanut said:

I’m amazed at the various comments about cyclists. It’s hardly an issue to overtake cyclists with a big safety gap when on the motorbike.

Unless there's a long trail of cars, nose to tail behind them, on narrow twisty roads

[KTMsm]

black-k1 said:

We should all use the road with consideration for others. If the gully covers are poor and that's resulted in a long line of cars behind the cyclist because the cyclist can't ride at the edge of the road, perhaps the cyclist should consider pulling over to let the cars past before proceeding? The fact that there is a long line shows that the cars have already been considerate and not pushed past.

The main problem I see with cyclists is that the majority of cars don't know how to overtake them

I've overtaken numerous cars, in my car, that have been following cyclists for miles, with plenty of overtaking opportunities

If driver's aren't going to overtake a cyclist / tractor etc they should leave a gap so that those of us who can overtake, have the opportunity to do so