Gopro footage analysed by police to convict!

[V8Bart]

Worrying where this is going?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/...

[S100HP]

V8Bart said:

Worrying where this is going?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/...

Not really. If you're dumb enough to film it, then post it online, expect to get caught.

[psi310398]

V8Bart said:

Worrying where this is going?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/...

OT but did you notice the name of the second reporter?

[ApexCult]

Play stupid games....

Although the statement saying someone could have died is a little over the top.

[ChocolateFrog]

Didn't watch it but if 93mph was his top speed then he's lucky he wasn't actually going for it.

That's probably 2 seconds of full throttle over and above the NSL.

[PSB1]

I do hope he's well heeled.

[cossy400]

A lot of work involved but thats what they ll do now for a conviction.

The youtubers about the country need to start being careful now as they ll be the next to get hit, you ve only got to watch some of them and think they might be pushing there luck a little.

One i can think of always runs his videos in the same area so its not hard to work out the distances or for that matter the fact hes not doing the speed limits when hers giving the cars a fist full down some lanes/duel carriageways etc.

[h0b0]

Nothing new. There was a guy in Japan convicted for doing over 200mph in an F40 many years ago due to his recording of the incident.

[768]

V8Bart said:

Worrying where this is going?

Smaller police budgets? Nope.

[psi310398]

What I don't understand is how this stuff can be used as evidence when the police themselves need to demonstrate that the equipment they use is calibrated accurately and sufficiently recently to the time it was used to gather the relevant evidence (and approved for use for the purpose of gathering speeding evidence). Am I missing something?

[ApexCult]

psi310398 said:

What I don't understand is how this stuff can be used as evidence when the police themselves need to demonstrate that the equipment they use is calibrated accurately and sufficiently recently to the time it was used to gather the relevant evidence (and approved for use for the purpose of gathering speeding evidence). Am I missing something?

A known distance between two landmarks divided by the length of time it take to cover that distance = speed

Repeat that a few times and bingo £££

[psi310398]

ApexCult said:

A known distance between two landmarks divided by the length of time it take to cover that distance = speed

Repeat that a few times and bingo £££

But doesn't it depend on the instrument measuring accurately? I see nothing that says that the instrument in question was tested, simply that downloaded footage was used.

Can it even be proven that it was the same car and driver from that footage?

I'm sure it was, but interested to understand why some evidential standards appear to be higher than others.

[Taita]

Seems mental there is no need to prove it isn't' sped up or altered and that there forensic chain of custody from the incident through to the courtroom etc. eg not just sat on the defendant hard drive for 3 months.

[768]

ApexCult said:

A known distance between two landmarks divided by the length of time it take to cover that distance = speed

Repeat that a few times and bingo £££

Well, yes, but I suppose the question really is, how accurate is the timing in a GoPro (and any manipulation of the video after it's left the device)? Sufficiently so to ask for a few quid for the coffers it seems.

[ApexCult]

I'm sure questions like that would have been raised during the case and evidence shown to mitigate against this.

Not everything is a conspiracy

[Freakuk]

Taita said:

Seems mental there is no need to prove it isn't' sped up or altered and that there forensic chain of custody from the incident through to the courtroom etc. eg not just sat on the defendant hard drive for 3 months.

My thoughts exactly, couldn't you argue that you had sped the video up by 25% etc, hard to prove surely on an uploaded video stream?

[agtlaw]

V8Bart said:

Worrying where this is going?

Hardly something new.

[anonymous-user]

Freakuk said:

Taita said:

Seems mental there is no need to prove it isn't' sped up or altered and that there forensic chain of custody from the incident through to the courtroom etc. eg not just sat on the defendant hard drive for 3 months.

My thoughts exactly, couldn't you argue that you had sped the video up by 25% etc, hard to prove surely on an uploaded video stream?

Sped up footage looks instinctively wrong because everything is sped up including things that won't speed up (the environment) and things will be sped up to too much like the speed of suspension travel. The audio would also be off.

[psi310398]

ApexCult said:

I'm sure questions like that would have been raised during the case and evidence shown to mitigate against this.

Not everything is a conspiracy

I think I did say he probably did it . But I was asking why one type of video evidence is required to be produced to a much higher evidential standard than another (apparently)?

[V10leptoquark]

For a prosecution, don't the police have to state the speed at which the conviction is for?

Anyways, look out Top Gear, 5th Gear and car magazines youtube channels - the police are coming for you !