Is another drivers dash cam footage evidence?

[martin mrt]

A friend of mine (honestly I’m completely innocent) had the police visit a few weeks ago with regards to his manner of driving, evidence was supplied to the police in the form of dashcam footage

From what I know he had followed a driver in L2 of a dual carriageway for around 6 miles, at 65 mph. Said driver made no attempt to return to L1 when it was clear and carried on in L2 at 65mph completely oblivious to the world around him.
My friend got fed up, passed him on the inside and carried on.

Now the driver he passed has sent the dash cam footage of the incident to the police as such they have paid him a visit, cautioned and questioned him, telling him the procurator fiscal will be in touch in due course

This doesn’t ring true to me, I thought he would be charged before the fiscal would be involved?

This is in Scotland so may differ to England

[daddy cool]

martin mrt said:

My friend got fed up, passed him on the inside and carried on.

Suppose it depends on whether he "passed him on the inside" (something I do each and every day), or was driving an inch from his bumper, then violently swung round the left of him and then violently swung into L2 again right in front of the bumper of the dashcam car.
The Po-Po might be interested in scenario #2.

[martin mrt]

daddy cool said:

martin mrt said:

My friend got fed up, passed him on the inside and carried on.

Suppose it depends on whether he "passed him on the inside" (something I do each and every day), or was driving an inch from his bumper, then violently swung round the left of him and then violently swung into L2 again right in front of the bumper of the dashcam car.
The Po-Po might be interested in scenario #2.

This is a valid point, and unfortunately I only have his version of events to go by in which there was no mention of scenario #2

[donkmeister]

Obviously the police will have charged the lane hogger for occupying the overtaking lane when not overtaking... Right?

[wazztie16]

Slightly ot, but I wonder if lane hogging could potentially become a dangerous driving situation /offence, as if can indirectly cause other drivers to become frustrated and maybe make manoeuvres they wouldn't in everyday regular driving.

Of course, yes, other drivers shouldn't get frustrated and undertake dangerously for example, but I'd like to know what the police would say to a passenger calling up and reporting a lane hogger there and then, maybe claiming other drivers have been seen to undertake and throw an insult,which obviously could well be a situation.

And as we all know, throwing insults /sitting on the arse of another car can escalate things...

[Rude-boy]

donkmeister said:

Obviously the police will have charged the lane hogger for occupying the overtaking lane when not overtaking... Right?

Of course not.

18 months or so ago I had the pleasure of sitting in an unmarked X5 and then a lovely Drive 4Change Course thanks to undertaking a line of 10 or 11 cars which were all sitting in lane 3 behind a similar 65mph everywhere road user.

I chose to go into lane 1 and undertook them after sitting in the queue for 10 minutes. All this time we passed about 6 cars and lorries that were in either lane 1 or 2 and when i made my move there was nothing in lanes 1 or 2.

Turns out the 3rd car was the unmarked X5. I was very polite but did ask them why it as they were so swift to pull me when they themselves had been right behind the DWDCA MLM for more than enough time to either pull them or show them their lights. Apparently i am easier to prosecute, although they did agree it would be better to deal with the disease than the symptoms...

[martin mrt]

That was my first question was whether the other motorist will be charged with lane hogging. Apparently not it seems

I’ve offered some advice and I’m asking on here purely to clarify the advice I’m giving him isn’t completely wrong

[herewego]

Any relevant information can be used as evidence so yes the camera footage can be evidence. When the police came did they show him the evidence? If so they must have explained what if anything was unacceptable about the driving.

[LosingGrip]

Sounds like there is more to it to me.

[Seight_Returns]

As daddy cool says - it's entirely context dependent whether there were any offences here and whether they are deserving of prosecution.

You have your mate's version of events - the police have video of what actually happened.

[daddy cool]

Rude-boy said:

Of course not.

18 months or so ago I had the pleasure of sitting in an unmarked X5 and then a lovely Drive 4Change Course thanks to undertaking a line of 10 or 11 cars which were all sitting in lane 3 behind a similar 65mph everywhere road user.

I chose to go into lane 1 and undertook them after sitting in the queue for 10 minutes. All this time we passed about 6 cars and lorries that were in either lane 1 or 2 and when i made my move there was nothing in lanes 1 or 2.

Turns out the 3rd car was the unmarked X5. I was very polite but did ask them why it as they were so swift to pull me when they themselves had been right behind the DWDCA MLM for more than enough time to either pull them or show them their lights. Apparently i am easier to prosecute, although they did agree it would be better to deal with the disease than the symptoms...

But... theres nothing illegal about driving the speed limit in L1, even if those in L2 & L3 choose to drive slower than the speed limit ?

[PAULJ5555]

martin mrt said:

That was my first question was whether the other motorist will be charged with lane hogging. Apparently not it seems

Has your friend made an official complaint to the police about the lane hogger blocking the lane?

[vonhosen]

daddy cool said:

Rude-boy said:

Of course not.

18 months or so ago I had the pleasure of sitting in an unmarked X5 and then a lovely Drive 4Change Course thanks to undertaking a line of 10 or 11 cars which were all sitting in lane 3 behind a similar 65mph everywhere road user.

I chose to go into lane 1 and undertook them after sitting in the queue for 10 minutes. All this time we passed about 6 cars and lorries that were in either lane 1 or 2 and when i made my move there was nothing in lanes 1 or 2.

Turns out the 3rd car was the unmarked X5. I was very polite but did ask them why it as they were so swift to pull me when they themselves had been right behind the DWDCA MLM for more than enough time to either pull them or show them their lights. Apparently i am easier to prosecute, although they did agree it would be better to deal with the disease than the symptoms...

But... theres nothing illegal about driving the speed limit in L1, even if those in L2 & L3 choose to drive slower than the speed limit ?

Driving in lane 2 when there is nothing in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.
Passing traffic in lane 2 when driving in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.

Either can amount to Sec 3 RTA 1988 depending on circumstance (that's depending on how Police/CPS/Court view it in the circumstances, not how the individual accused interpret it).

[Countdown]

daddy cool said:

martin mrt said:

My friend got fed up, passed him on the inside and carried on.

Suppose it depends on whether he "passed him on the inside" (something I do each and every day), or was driving an inch from his bumper, then violently swung round the left of him and then violently swung into L2 again right in front of the bumper of the dashcam car.
The Po-Po might be interested in scenario #2.

That would be logical.

With regards to MLM I'm genuinely not sure why it causes so much stress. You can drive in L1 at the speed limit and if that means you end up passing them then so be it.

OP - assuming your mate thinks he is blameless he should let the matter go to Court.

[Rude-boy]

vonhosen said:

Driving in lane 2 when there is nothing in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.
Passing traffic in lane 2 when driving in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.

Either can amount to Sec 3 RTA 1988 depending on circumstance (that's depending on how Police/CPS/Court view it in the circumstances, not how the individual accused interpret it).

That was my limited understanding of it.

Neither are specific offences but both are dealt with under Due Care and Attention.

The point being that trying to defend a DCA charge is likely a fools errand as it is a cut and dried, 30 seconds of footage, see the offense and let's be honest chances are you would be going over the NSL (i know i was). Not hard for a first prosecution the day after finishing bar school even with someone who knows what and how to say in the defense.

On the other hand MLM is a lot harder for them to prove, they will argue till blue in the face and will come up with all sorts of reasons and excuses for not changing lanes. Then you think about how many MLMs there are and the fact the many of them fit neatly into the sort you expect to find on the mags bench...

Bottom line MLMs are hard to prosecute and require will and time. Undertakers are almost certainly going to be breaking NSL at the least (or else would be able to argue against it more) and easier meat.

To be honest if it had been local to me and not a potential CD10 code I would have taken it further as i could have afforded to lose, save the CD10 would have screwed my insurance for years and with 6 cars between my wife and i that would not have been worth it, i took the course and actually found it interesting, although the only thing i learnt was to look more in my LHS mirror for filtering cyclists when turning left at junctions.

[Alucidnation]

LosingGrip said:

Sounds like there is more to it to me.

Agreed.

[Wingo]

So your mate invited the police into his house for a chat about some dashcam warrior footage when they called round?

I'm pretty sure he didn't have to do that

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and...

and by doing so it made things easy for the police take advantage/put the frighteners on.

I have been on the receiving end of a roadside discussion about my driving that was apparently recorded on the police cars camera many years ago. The police told me that I would be hearing from them. In reality I heard nothing more, didn't stop me worrying about it for 6 months though.

[Dixy]

vonhosen said:

Driving in lane 2 when there is nothing in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.
Passing traffic in lane 2 when driving in lane 1 is not itself a legislated offence.

Either can amount to Sec 3 RTA 1988 depending on circumstance (that's depending on how Police/CPS/Court view it in the circumstances, not how the individual accused interpret it).

As always Von thanks for giving us the facts.

Do you have any sage words of advice how to handle this situation other than sitting behind and gnashing ones teeth.

[Aretnap]

martin mrt said:

This doesn’t ring true to me, I thought he would be charged before the fiscal would be involved?

This is in Scotland so may differ to England

AIUI in Scotland the Fiscal makes the charging decision on pretty much everything, unlike in England where on things like minor motoring offences the police make the charging decision and the CPS probably don't read the file until the day of the first court hearing. So yes, it would be quite normal for the Fiscal to get involved before he was charged.

The Fiscal can also issue fixed penalties, so it's possible that the next thing he'll get is the offer of a fixed penalty rather than an actual summons (or whatever the Scottish equivalent of a summons is).

[BobSaunders]

martin mrt said:

A friend of mine (honestly I’m completely innocent) had the police visit a few weeks ago with regards to his manner of driving, evidence was supplied to the police in the form of dashcam footage

From what I know he had followed a driver in L2 of a dual carriageway for around 6 miles, at 65 mph. Said driver made no attempt to return to L1 when it was clear and carried on in L2 at 65mph completely oblivious to the world around him.
My friend got fed up, passed him on the inside and carried on.

Now the driver he passed has sent the dash cam footage of the incident to the police as such they have paid him a visit, cautioned and questioned him, telling him the procurator fiscal will be in touch in due course

This doesn’t ring true to me, I thought he would be charged before the fiscal would be involved?

This is in Scotland so may differ to England

Sounds like they are gathering evidence - then will submit.

Depends on the speed limit, and how much your friend exceeded it when passing, and what he did next. And if there is any rear view footage.

70MPH is the speed on most dual carriageways, if someone is doing 65 in L2, there is nothing to say you can't travel in L1 to road conditions at 70mph and maintain speed and pass. If no rear view camera then it is he said she said on what happened behind.. e.g. travelling along with cruise control on and maintained lane discipline and speed limit.

Doing it at 70mph plus, then fair enough. I would like to think that the police would prosecute MLH.

I maintain a dashcam for my own protection nowadays.