'Operation Snap' - police want motorists' dashcam videos
Discussion
La Liga said:
Yes, just like the Stasi.
Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
Inequality of arms in court and a statutory requirement to incriminate yourself might not be in the realms of the Stasi, but it's hardly fair.Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
InitialDave said:
What we want/need is for people to be educated and understand why a given speed limit is appropriate (on top of it actually being appropriate), and so obey it not because of the fear of being caught, or simply because the law says so, but because it is the correct thing to do.
I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the f
k you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change
Exactly so. I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the f
k you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change
It's all about what you see the ultimate goal is. Is it, as you say, driving at an appropriate and safe speed for the given conditions (which may be less that the posted limit and, gasp, could be above it) or is it simple blind adherence and dumb obedience to the posted limits even if they are unreasonably low? Tapereel is very obviously in the latter camp.
La Liga said:
Yes, just like the Stasi.
Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
I think its mindset creep that causes concern - not the current actual Stasi-ness of where we are today!Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
Yes, just like the Stasi.
Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
Inequality of arms in court and a statutory requirement to incriminate yourself might not be in the realms of the Stasi, but it's hardly fair.Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
Ken Figenus said:
La Liga said:
Yes, just like the Stasi.
Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
I think its mindset creep that causes concern - not the current actual Stasi-ness of where we are today!Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
It's improbable they'll be looking at anything below driving standard offences i.e. due care / dangerous.
InitialDave said:
What we want/need is for people to be educated and understand why a given speed limit is appropriate (on top of it actually being appropriate), and so obey it not because of the fear of being caught, or simply because the law says so, but because it is the correct thing to do.
I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the fk you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change....
+1 - great common sense post that actually bothers to take account of how best to deal with humans and their human nature. I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the f
k you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change....To be fair you do see some of the clever carrot rather than the dumb stick in a proportion of the more intelligent SAC's that can be quite effective.
InitialDave said:
What we want/need is for people to be educated and understand why a given speed limit is appropriate (on top of it actually being appropriate), and so obey it not because of the fear of being caught, or simply because the law says so, but because it is the correct thing to do.
I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the fk you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change, and pondering whether their number plate is about to suffer an "oh, yeah, I'm just off to Halfords for a new one..." accident.
Agreed and very well put.I think that silliness like hiding in a horsebox actively discourages the above, and - as I believe receiving a letter through the post a week after the fact does, in comparison to a copper having a little chat with you about precisely what the f
k you think you're playing at - it just makes the average person feel indignant and resentful, in no way encouraging them to review their driving or change, and pondering whether their number plate is about to suffer an "oh, yeah, I'm just off to Halfords for a new one..." accident.We seem to have lost the education and prevention aspect. I remember the public information films... now they look dated, but I think they were a loss overall. Can't we embrace new media (and given YouTube/Facebook, etc can target very specific demographics) and find a new way of educating people?
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
Yes, just like the Stasi.
Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
Inequality of arms in court and a statutory requirement to incriminate yourself might not be in the realms of the Stasi, but it's hardly fair.Except for the independent, open-to-the-public court where you or someone on your behalf can have the person gathering evidence upon you present and questioned to justify their actions against the laws created in a democratically elected Parliament.
You're clearly "on message", as always. Do you have ACPO aspirations? Or whatever ACPO is called this week.
For many people, driving to work is the only way they can earn an honest shekel. You're avoiding the key issues of inequality of arms and statutory requirement for the registered keeper to incriminate himself.
V8 Fettler said:
You're clearly "on message", as always. Do you have ACPO aspirations? Or whatever ACPO is called this week.
Always indeed. Apart from, for example, my views on drugs which I think needs total reform and several currently illegal substances legalising. V8 Fettler said:
For many people, driving to work is the only way they can earn an honest shekel.
Well fortunately for them, whether or not they receive a S.172 request is completely in their hands. It's not a lottery, the rules and consequences are clearly outlined and it's up to the individual what risks they wish to take vs whatever benefit they perceive they'll gain. V8 Fettler said:
You're avoiding the key issues of inequality of arms and statutory requirement for the registered keeper to incriminate himself.
I answered both. The legal judgement is basically what I said, that people who drive vehicles accept certain responsibilities. 'Inequality of arms' is ambiguous so I interpreted it within a financial context since the major recent negative reforms within the CJS have been driven by reductions in funding. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're clearly "on message", as always. Do you have ACPO aspirations? Or whatever ACPO is called this week.
Always indeed. Apart from, for example, my views on drugs which I think needs total reform and several currently illegal substances legalising. V8 Fettler said:
For many people, driving to work is the only way they can earn an honest shekel.
Well fortunately for them, whether or not they receive a S.172 request is completely in their hands. It's not a lottery, the rules and consequences are clearly outlined and it's up to the individual what risks they wish to take vs whatever benefit they perceive they'll gain. V8 Fettler said:
You're avoiding the key issues of inequality of arms and statutory requirement for the registered keeper to incriminate himself.
I answered both. The legal judgement is basically what I said, that people who drive vehicles accept certain responsibilities. 'Inequality of arms' is ambiguous so I interpreted it within a financial context since the major recent negative reforms within the CJS have been driven by reductions in funding. The rules may well state that a motorist is required to self-incriminate, but these rules are fundamentally flawed in a relatively free society.
The inequality of arms centres around the ability of the CPS to throw substantial resource into winning court cases involving the relatively trivial offence of speeding, this level of resource being out of proportion to the alleged offence.
LocoCoco said:
I've already been charged with dangerous driving in said area after a citizen took offence to my driving and sent in the video. I got an NFA result which was nice. You get to learn the complainant's name if they make a statement, maybe think twice about reporting somebody if you have an unusual name.
When watching the video I pointed out how I hadn't exceeded the speed limit or veered out of my lane. The policeman told me that he could never charge me for speeding from public dashcam footage since they aren't calibrated.
Also, you couldn't see who was driving from the rear view the dashcam took (MX5 with roof down, I'm guessing it'll be even harder to identify the driver in most cases), if I had a plausible reason to not know who was driving that day I don't think I would have even had to go in for an interview at all.
It's tempting to get a dashcam and send in umpteen clips each day of careless driving, maybe bait some people so I can edit some good footage. I won't do that though, I remember how it felt when somebody did it to me.
What exactly was this 'citizens' objection to your driving?When watching the video I pointed out how I hadn't exceeded the speed limit or veered out of my lane. The policeman told me that he could never charge me for speeding from public dashcam footage since they aren't calibrated.
Also, you couldn't see who was driving from the rear view the dashcam took (MX5 with roof down, I'm guessing it'll be even harder to identify the driver in most cases), if I had a plausible reason to not know who was driving that day I don't think I would have even had to go in for an interview at all.
It's tempting to get a dashcam and send in umpteen clips each day of careless driving, maybe bait some people so I can edit some good footage. I won't do that though, I remember how it felt when somebody did it to me.
V8 Fettler said:
The rules may well state that a motorist is required to self-incriminate, but these rules are fundamentally flawed in a relatively free society.
According to you. The ECHR disagreed. V8 Fettler said:
The inequality of arms centres around the ability of the CPS to throw substantial resource into winning court cases involving the relatively trivial offence of speeding, this level of resource being out of proportion to the alleged offence.
I imagine which witnesses are called to provide prosecution evidence is primarily going to be dictated by which evidence the accused is challenging as part of their defence. If evidence is disputed it's the CPS's duty to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt to ensure a safe and just conviction. V8 Fettler said:
I'm sure there's a place for you in ACPO, you'll fit in well.
The rules may well state that a motorist is required to self-incriminate, but these rules are fundamentally flawed in a relatively free society.
I may be wrong since I haven't thought about this before but the requirement is to state who was driving at the time of the alleged offence, it is not required to admit the offence. You can go to court where the offence would have to be proved.The rules may well state that a motorist is required to self-incriminate, but these rules are fundamentally flawed in a relatively free society.
Vaud said:
We seem to have lost the education and prevention aspect. I remember the public information films... now they look dated, but I think they were a loss overall. Can't we embrace new media (and given YouTube/Facebook, etc can target very specific demographics) and find a new way of educating people?
Agreed and very well put #2!Rare initiatives like this one really work and actually went viral https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/sep/03/gwent-r... Cost? Only 100 speeding tickets... That's it! Absolute no brainer - especially given the amount of online media consumed these days. And we all remember Think Once, Think Twice Think BIKE! etc dont we? Its not even on the radar these day
The remit of these Speed Camera Partnerships should so be widened to include active positive road safety promotion and education. We are not always best served by their passive sat down activities followed by envelope licking activities! ..
Ken Figenus said:
Agreed and very well put #2!
Rare initiatives like this one really work and actually went viral https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/sep/03/gwent-r... Cost? Only 100 speeding tickets... That's it! Absolute no brainer - especially given the amount of online media consumed these days. And we all remember Think Once, Think Twice Think BIKE! etc dont we? Its not even on the radar these day
Yup. Given social media can target accurately key groups - let's say 15-18 year old males who are members of car groups on Facebook. Or teenagers in high car accident areas that watch car videos. It is amazing what the social media companies offer. Rare initiatives like this one really work and actually went viral https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/sep/03/gwent-r... Cost? Only 100 speeding tickets... That's it! Absolute no brainer - especially given the amount of online media consumed these days. And we all remember Think Once, Think Twice Think BIKE! etc dont we? Its not even on the radar these day
Find an icon that they respect (e.g. Lewis Hamilton - I have no idea as I'm old), and feed the content directly when they watch a video as a paid advert. He might even do it for nothing...
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The rules may well state that a motorist is required to self-incriminate, but these rules are fundamentally flawed in a relatively free society.
According to you. The ECHR disagreed. V8 Fettler said:
The inequality of arms centres around the ability of the CPS to throw substantial resource into winning court cases involving the relatively trivial offence of speeding, this level of resource being out of proportion to the alleged offence.
I imagine which witnesses are called to provide prosecution evidence is primarily going to be dictated by which evidence the accused is challenging as part of their defence. If evidence is disputed it's the CPS's duty to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt to ensure a safe and just conviction. For most motorists in court for speeding, there is little equality in arms when the CPS can draw upon the expensive attack dogs at Road Safety Support and similar. What was it Merrydid said? "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough" ?
I'm no expert at speeding cases in court (agt would be better to give an input), but I imagine most challenges are of a technical nature e.g. calibration, signage and other equipment-based challenges, which is going to require an expert in those fields to present the prosecution evidence.
Ken Figenus said:
LOL!
To be fair its probably fuelled by genuine cases like this absolute clown:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
We have to trust the police to distinguish between 'I didn't like being overtook by a local whilst I was on holiday and happily in a convoy of 12 led by a Stobart or Mansel Davies truck' and nailing absolute reckless drivers like in the video.
Ah Mansel Davies tankers. The ones not even locals will try and overtake and when you do is as if you are killing someone. It's almost as if safe overtaking is illegal. I'll overtake anyone who is doing 40 in a 60. Lampeter and the surrounding area is a nightmare for itTo be fair its probably fuelled by genuine cases like this absolute clown:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
We have to trust the police to distinguish between 'I didn't like being overtook by a local whilst I was on holiday and happily in a convoy of 12 led by a Stobart or Mansel Davies truck' and nailing absolute reckless drivers like in the video.
Dr Jekyll said:
LocoCoco said:
I've already been charged with dangerous driving in said area after a citizen took offence to my driving and sent in the video. I got an NFA result which was nice. You get to learn the complainant's name if they make a statement, maybe think twice about reporting somebody if you have an unusual name.
When watching the video I pointed out how I hadn't exceeded the speed limit or veered out of my lane. The policeman told me that he could never charge me for speeding from public dashcam footage since they aren't calibrated.
Also, you couldn't see who was driving from the rear view the dashcam took (MX5 with roof down, I'm guessing it'll be even harder to identify the driver in most cases), if I had a plausible reason to not know who was driving that day I don't think I would have even had to go in for an interview at all.
It's tempting to get a dashcam and send in umpteen clips each day of careless driving, maybe bait some people so I can edit some good footage. I won't do that though, I remember how it felt when somebody did it to me.
What exactly was this 'citizens' objection to your driving?When watching the video I pointed out how I hadn't exceeded the speed limit or veered out of my lane. The policeman told me that he could never charge me for speeding from public dashcam footage since they aren't calibrated.
Also, you couldn't see who was driving from the rear view the dashcam took (MX5 with roof down, I'm guessing it'll be even harder to identify the driver in most cases), if I had a plausible reason to not know who was driving that day I don't think I would have even had to go in for an interview at all.
It's tempting to get a dashcam and send in umpteen clips each day of careless driving, maybe bait some people so I can edit some good footage. I won't do that though, I remember how it felt when somebody did it to me.
They (I guess) phoned the police and made up a big exaggerated story saying they had footage of everything.
Police forced to believe them, charge me with DD and ask for the footage.
Footage arrives showing a couple of crappy burnouts in an MX5. Tunnel part conveniently edited out.
I have to go in for interview in the hope that I will admit to something from the witness statement (stuff like "it was school closing time with kids everywhere", it was half term and 1.10 pm. "Pedestrians had to run to the side to avoid the driver hitting them" there were no pedestrians in the video. "The driver braked dangerously multiple times, almost causing me to crash into the back of them" This didn't translate very well to video, I pointed out that if you follow at a safe distance, this should never happen.).
The policeman dealing with it was very good/honest/fair. I can imagine the poor guy's going to have to watch an awful lot of boring dashcam videos in the near future.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff