Debate with a friend over Dash Cam evidence...
Discussion
Hi all. I was taking to a friend about dash cams and how police use them as evidence against other motorists breaking the law and I wanted some more experienced opinions or even facts (of anyone knows the facts)...
For example if someone ran a red light and was caught on dash cam and then sent to police... would they give you 3 point and fine or are they only interested in dangerous driving etc???
What I am trying to say is... at what point are police interested in dash cam videos? Running light? Aggressive overtake? Wonder where they draw the line. Thoughts?
For example if someone ran a red light and was caught on dash cam and then sent to police... would they give you 3 point and fine or are they only interested in dangerous driving etc???
What I am trying to say is... at what point are police interested in dash cam videos? Running light? Aggressive overtake? Wonder where they draw the line. Thoughts?
Why would you care if someone's jumped a red light? Would you report them if you'd seen them do rather than caught it on camera? If so would you pull up a cyclist & call the police if they jumped a red light?
If the answer is no then leave people to get on with their lives, if you witness to an accident then it's acceptable but apart from that I see no reason to be reporting anyone.
If the answer is no then leave people to get on with their lives, if you witness to an accident then it's acceptable but apart from that I see no reason to be reporting anyone.
Generally they have neither the time nor inclination to deal with anything but the most serious offences.
Dashcam footage can be tampered with so isn't irrefutable evidence.
However sometimes they will pursue speeders based on their own Youtube posting or bolster a case after an accident from forum posts as has been the case on here in the past.
Dashcam footage can be tampered with so isn't irrefutable evidence.
However sometimes they will pursue speeders based on their own Youtube posting or bolster a case after an accident from forum posts as has been the case on here in the past.
It's your footage. You are the one who has to give a statement and go to court to prove the offence producing the dashcam footage as part of your evidence. You are the one who will be standing in the box being cross examined by a defence solicitor if it goes that far. The police just generate the paperwork.
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
ZX10R NIN said:
Why would you care if someone's jumped a red light? Would you report them if you'd seen them do rather than caught it on camera? If so would you pull up a cyclist & call the police if they jumped a red light?
If the answer is no then leave people to get on with their lives, if you witness to an accident then it's acceptable but apart from that I see no reason to be reporting anyone.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If you're happy for people to jump red lights then that's fine.If the answer is no then leave people to get on with their lives, if you witness to an accident then it's acceptable but apart from that I see no reason to be reporting anyone.
I'm not suggesting people start reporting everyone but it's just something to bear in mind.
Grunt Futtock said:
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying there was no jogger on the pavement at the time the van was on it? Therefore your footage showed a van driving on an empty pavement for a while? If so you must have a lot of spare time on your hands to go to the trouble of taking that into the police station: can't say I'm surprised they didn't want to prosecute him.PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Geekman said:
Grunt Futtock said:
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying there was no jogger on the pavement at the time the van was on it? Therefore your footage showed a van driving on an empty pavement for a while? If so you must have a lot of spare time on your hands to go to the trouble of taking that into the police station: can't say I'm surprised they didn't want to prosecute him.PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Geekman said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying there was no jogger on the pavement at the time the van was on it? Therefore your footage showed a van driving on an empty pavement for a while? If so you must have a lot of spare time on your hands to go to the trouble of taking that into the police station: can't say I'm surprised they didn't want to prosecute him.
Oh yes, loads of time on my hands. Alternatively I don't want to see white van man driving on pavements through bus stop waiting areas around where I live, did I mention he nearly took my wing mirror off as well? If you are happy to live in an area that is perfectly acceptable driving let me know where that is so I can avoid it.Grunt Futtock said:
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Dear god.PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
I think the OP's question is valid and interesting... Whilst I have front and rear cameras on my car and have recorded plenty of knobbish driving over the years, I have never felt obliged to report/show any to the police.
However, other people have probably recorded me driving (in their opinion) like a knob. I overtake on country lanes, which qualifies me as a maniac to some.
At what point will the police pay attention to them? Hopefully never, if it is just that crazy guy who shouts at that jag every day. What if I have to break the speed limit to overtake them? What if I am doing a multiple overtake and wind it up to 100 to minimise exposure time? Will the police be interested then?
However, other people have probably recorded me driving (in their opinion) like a knob. I overtake on country lanes, which qualifies me as a maniac to some.
At what point will the police pay attention to them? Hopefully never, if it is just that crazy guy who shouts at that jag every day. What if I have to break the speed limit to overtake them? What if I am doing a multiple overtake and wind it up to 100 to minimise exposure time? Will the police be interested then?
Slightly off topic but how about this dash cam nut recording his own atrocious driving and then uploading it for everyone to see. He's got a few videos and it's always his driving that's shocking. Unreal.
NSFW due to the language
https://youtu.be/S-h3VF29hg8
NSFW due to the language
https://youtu.be/S-h3VF29hg8
Grunt Futtock said:
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
We all do daft things from time to time. Sure the van driver behaved like an idiot. Maybe he does it a lot, or maybe he's going through something in his private life and momentarily lost his rag, with no actual consequence. Routine offenders normally suffer the consequences at some point.PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Thankfully, when we make mistakes/do something stupid, the vast majority of the time there is no consequence and life goes on as normal. Most of the time we learn from it without anybody else being involved. That is until we all start running to the police with every little misdemeanour we catch on our many cameras.
Grunt Futtock said:
I've come from the Police station this morning after showing some dashcam footage and had an interesting convo with the PC. Basically yesterday morning I was sat behind a car waiting to turn right, white van man behind decided that this waiting lark was far too much trouble and mounted the pavement to drive around us both (probably a distance of 25M or so) before rejoining the road. There had been a jogger on the path not 20 seconds before it happened so I reported it to 101 who booked me an appointment to go and show the footage.
PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
Dear god get a grip of yourself man! I bet you cant wait to don a high-viz jacket and perform a speed check for your local community too, or is that limited to weekends only? PC at the station viewed it and took details down and when asked what would happen next said the following:
If it had been a patrol car that he had gone past then it would have been clear cut driving without due care etc. but because it was a member of the public who has reported it (even with dashcam footage) they would have to summons the guy to court which he said was unlikely to be considered in the public interest due to the expense and relatively minor nature of the offence. He said the guy will instead get a section 59 and have to behave for 12 months or if they find he already has a section 59 then his van would be seized straightaway.
Basically unless it was serious they aren't going to go through the expense of a summons etc.
NicheMonkey said:
Slightly off topic but how about this dash cam nut recording his own atrocious driving and then uploading it for everyone to see. He's got a few videos and it's always his driving that's shocking. Unreal.
NSFW due to the language
https://youtu.be/S-h3VF29hg8
Ha, this guy has serious horn Tourette's or something, he also makes noises like a horse! NSFW due to the language
https://youtu.be/S-h3VF29hg8
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff