Dashcam Footage Used By Police
Discussion
I’ve got cameras on all our vehicles including one on my bike helmet. I’ve never considered passing footage onto the police and simply have them as we have found on our work vehicles they are very useful in the case of an accident, I’ve also sacked one of our drivers for driving like a complete c**k after checking a compliant from a someone about an incident.
I am now very tempted to submit footage of the outside and middle lane hoggers I see every day on the M11 and M25. I wonder if they will get prosecuted?
I am now very tempted to submit footage of the outside and middle lane hoggers I see every day on the M11 and M25. I wonder if they will get prosecuted?
The video in OP, red car overtake of the pedal cyclist at 2:43. The pass was too close. However the cyclist was closer to the right hand kerb than the left. They were 2.5 or 3 metres from the left hand edge of the road, with nothing to their left. Had the cyclist been 1m to the left, it would have been a non incident and the cyclist would still have 1.5m clearance to the kerb. As it was, the cyclist planted themselves down the middle of the road. The car could just as well have passed them on the left as on the right. That is the type of thing you see camera cyclists doing, once you watch a few of their YT/Twitter videos. Riding in an inconsiderate position which does not give them any safety benefit, but blocks other traffic. Then report it to the police once someone does overtake.
--
Looks like some random photo from somewhere in Australia
--
Looks like some random photo from somewhere in Australia
Moulder said:
simon_harris said:
You can't overtake on a hatched area I think.
Provided it's surrounded by unbroken white lines you can enter it "if necesasry" (which it may be to perform an overtake!).130
Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)
Tbh, it looked like the BMW could have used more of the road for the overtake so as not to shower the camera car in all the stones and debris from the hatched area, but maybe there was more to it, to get to DWDC...
Chris
[quote=iidentifyaswoke]The video in OP, red car overtake of the pedal cyclist at 2:43. The pass was too close. However the cyclist was closer to the right hand kerb than the left. They were 2.5 or 3 metres from the left hand edge of the road, with nothing to their left. Had the cyclist been 1m to the left, it would have been a non incident and the cyclist would still have 1.5m clearance to the kerb. As it was, the cyclist planted themselves down the middle of the road. The car could just as well have passed them on the left as on the right. That is the type of thing you see camera cyclists doing, once you watch a few of their YT/Twitter videos. Riding in an inconsiderate position which does not give them any safety benefit, but blocks other traffic. Then report it to the police once someone does overtake.
TBH the car was indeed in the wrong, but I'd nick the cyclist for being deliberately obstructive. Without consideration for other road users or whatever the charge is.
TBH the car was indeed in the wrong, but I'd nick the cyclist for being deliberately obstructive. Without consideration for other road users or whatever the charge is.
iidentifyaswoke said:
IJWS15 said:
If you don’t drive/ride like a xxxx you don’t have anything to worry about.
I have a dash cam and in 8 years have submitted one clip. I could submit clips every time I went out - handheld mobile phone use, ignoring Red traffic lights …
That is not always correct. You do what I and almost all other people do, which is rarely report and only when it is genuinely dangerous driving. I have a dash cam and in 8 years have submitted one clip. I could submit clips every time I went out - handheld mobile phone use, ignoring Red traffic lights …
Once you start viewing the YT/Twitter channels of the camera cyclists who submit about half of all reports in London, you will note that they will report anything. For example, here
https://twitter.com/ChaponaBike123/status/17444911...
ChaponaBike. A camera cyclist who does daily reports about driving which is really just normal driving.
In this footage linked above, he is riding about 3 metres out from the kerb. The van in the photo overtook him, leaving perhaps slightly less than a 1.5m gap due to his position around 3m from the kerb. He reported the van driver.
As I said, in London, roughly 10 million people do 8,000 reports a year. About 20 camera cyclists do the other 8,000 reports.
t on it all. Which it normally is. Some call them out on it, ask how they know what happened to the driver, and they come up with all manner of bulls
t doubling down on thier claims, it's amazing how uneducated and bad a lying most of them actually are. Got to be honest one thing I never do regardless of how clear the road is overtake on double whites, many years ago a few of us were out on the bikes and a friend leading did just that and unbeknown to all of us there was an unmarked car behind, blues and twos came on and he got pulled a few miles up the road, 6 points from memory.
Most other stuff is fair game, speed is hard to judge on a cam but stuff like white lines it's black and white so I tend to wait it out.
Most other stuff is fair game, speed is hard to judge on a cam but stuff like white lines it's black and white so I tend to wait it out.
This is a really difficult one. I don't think any of us would object to footage of a driver putting a biker hospital due to bad driving being given to plod. But, what about if an accident was only just avoided by the biker for the same bad driving from the other driver? Where should the line be drawn as to what is OK to be sent to plod and what shouldn't be sent?
The only consistent line that we can all agree on is defined by the law. Break the law and I think you have to consider yourself as "fair game". I know that includes the times I do things like crossing solid white lines in 50 limits where last month it was a 60 limit with a broken line and there were no significant accidents. (politically motivated traffic restrictions rather than safety motivated restrictions).
That said, I think it really is sad that there are people who have nothing more important/interesting in their lives than to report the minor road traffic law breaking of others. If only we could all be as perfect as them!
The only consistent line that we can all agree on is defined by the law. Break the law and I think you have to consider yourself as "fair game". I know that includes the times I do things like crossing solid white lines in 50 limits where last month it was a 60 limit with a broken line and there were no significant accidents. (politically motivated traffic restrictions rather than safety motivated restrictions).
That said, I think it really is sad that there are people who have nothing more important/interesting in their lives than to report the minor road traffic law breaking of others. If only we could all be as perfect as them!
poo at Paul's said:
You can cross a broken line into a ghost island "if necessary". Driver would need to claim it was necessary.
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?
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 overtakeIf 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?
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
Mandat said:
poo at Paul's said:
You can cross a broken line into a ghost island "if necessary". Driver would need to claim it was necessary.
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?
If the vehicle you’re overtaking is doing 65 in a 60, it would be hard to justify. Conversely, if the vehicle was doing 40 in a 60, I think that’s reasonable.
But how about a vehicle doing 55 mph?
poo at Paul's said:
Well, the obvious justification is that is was necessary to overtake.
If the vehicle you’re overtaking is doing 65 in a 60, it would be hard to justify. Conversely, if the vehicle was doing 40 in a 60, I think that’s reasonable.
But how about a vehicle doing 55 mph?
I think you are confusing what the HC is saying. Committing to the overtake in this case necessitates entering a hatched area surrounded by broken white lines - the reason for the decision to overtake (can you class that as necessary or unnecessary?) is not material to that.If the vehicle you’re overtaking is doing 65 in a 60, it would be hard to justify. Conversely, if the vehicle was doing 40 in a 60, I think that’s reasonable.
But how about a vehicle doing 55 mph?
Chris
black-k1 said:
This is a really difficult one. I don't think any of us would object to footage of a driver putting a biker hospital due to bad driving being given to plod. But, what about if an accident was only just avoided by the biker for the same bad driving from the other driver? Where should the line be drawn as to what is OK to be sent to plod and what shouldn't be sent?
The only consistent line that we can all agree on is defined by the law. Break the law and I think you have to consider yourself as "fair game". I know that includes the times I do things like crossing solid white lines in 50 limits where last month it was a 60 limit with a broken line and there were no significant accidents. (politically motivated traffic restrictions rather than safety motivated restrictions).
That said, I think it really is sad that there are people who have nothing more important/interesting in their lives than to report the minor road traffic law breaking of others. If only we could all be as perfect as them!
I hate it, prosecution from video submission is so oppressive. And yet if the behaviour is enough to seriously threaten others lives i don't have an objection. I have picked the phone up about other road users twice, once because their behaviour nearly killed someone right in front of me, and funnily enough it made the national news. The problem is so many submissions are probably of trivial law breaking that's easily prosecuted yet poses little or no risk to others.The only consistent line that we can all agree on is defined by the law. Break the law and I think you have to consider yourself as "fair game". I know that includes the times I do things like crossing solid white lines in 50 limits where last month it was a 60 limit with a broken line and there were no significant accidents. (politically motivated traffic restrictions rather than safety motivated restrictions).
That said, I think it really is sad that there are people who have nothing more important/interesting in their lives than to report the minor road traffic law breaking of others. If only we could all be as perfect as them!
iidentifyaswoke said:
Looks like some random photo from somewhere in Australia
Thanks, I wondered why it wasn't in the video. Moulder said:
Seems like VisorDown cock up. It's like a local rag website or the Daily Mail using a library image.
Possible involvement of AI?
iidentifyaswoke said:
The police won't prosecute speeding based on third party footage.
.
I would have agreed before operation SNAP but im not so sure now..
I'm reading more and more online more people being prosecuted for speeding via dashcam footage.
I dont know this gentleman but what he says seems genuine enough to me, he was prosecuted for 115MPH on a clear road from uploaded footage, his cases went to court in October last year.
So the chap says, the police use their own software and a "specialist" to verify speeding via any footage.
Quote
"
I got lucky...but I have to say these last 5 months have been total stress.
I was dash cammed over taking this mutha doing 115mph.
Empty road good visibility and yes I was in the zone!
Now...this palava about dash cam footage.
The cops ca use it ...period.
They measure and calculate the speed with probably the best software out there too.
I was advised I could bring my own expert in to calculate the speed etc...I called a few ... wanted an average of £1500 for their report so I decided not to use them..." etc
I have a love/hate relationship with dashcams.
As others have mentioned here, including quality rant of the month, the tts who upload seemingly fabricated videos on a daily basis are s.
However, footage could be extremely helpful in analysing a serious or fatal crash.....
As with all these things, I reckon the cops will run out of hard drive space to store all this data, let alone have the manpower to review every single 'infringement'.
I avoid fking mamil cyclists like the plague.
As others have mentioned here, including quality rant of the month, the t
ts who upload seemingly fabricated videos on a daily basis are s.However, footage could be extremely helpful in analysing a serious or fatal crash.....
As with all these things, I reckon the cops will run out of hard drive space to store all this data, let alone have the manpower to review every single 'infringement'.
I avoid f
king mamil cyclists like the plague.Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff