Threshold for dashcam footage investigation
Discussion
What approach do you all think police forces are taking to dashcam footage submissions? Are they just chasing the most serious cases? Or are they prosecuting decent people for minor mistakes. Clearly there are lots of dashcam warriors on the roads these days.
Are the police just going after the most dangerous driving and the cases where it's easy to prove an offence e.g. handheld mobile phones?
Are the police just going after the most dangerous driving and the cases where it's easy to prove an offence e.g. handheld mobile phones?
I've dealt with Dashcam footage from someone ignoring a keep left sign to avoid a traffic (letter sent reminding them to keep to the highway code) to someone overtaking a number of cars stopped at a red light and then going though the red light (points for red light). Today a statement was signed by someone who provided us with footage of someone driving dangerously (I've not seen the footage, so don't know how bad it was, but as a statement was required, I'm guessing fairly bad that its gone to court).
I know others have dealt with footage of people using phones to solid white line overtakes.
I know others have dealt with footage of people using phones to solid white line overtakes.
crossing the white line is not an absolute offence.
29
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
29
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
I got done via dashcam reporting for turning right at a left turn only T junction.
The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
RB Will said:
I got done via dashcam reporting for turning right at a left turn only T junction.
The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
Maybe the threshold in your case was simply “defying the law”The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
RB Will said:
I got done via dashcam reporting for turning right at a left turn only T junction.
The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
Please explain why you believe you shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law? and whilst you're at it please tell us what other laws you think you can ignore? because you are clearly special.The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
Edited by Drumroll on Friday 21st December 18:59
Drumroll said:
Please explain why you believe you shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law? and whilst you're at it please tell us what other laws you think you can ignore? because you are clearly special.
I won’t as I didn’t say anything of the sort. Glad you think I’m special though. Edited by Drumroll on Friday 21st December 18:59
I was merely relaying my personal experience in response to the question posed in the thread.
If you stopped galloping around on your high horse for a minute maybe you could add something to the discussion too?
RB Will said:
I won’t as I didn’t say anything of the sort. Glad you think I’m special though.
You clearly think you are special as you broke the law and instead of just saying "yes I did it," you went on to explain why you thought it was OK for you to be exempt from the law. If that is not the case please explain in more detail.
As for being on my high horse I simply asked a question and have a different viewpoint to you (A view that the law clearly agrees with).
I think it should be ignored completely unless it helps with investigating a serious incident that has been reported separately ie RTC. There's plenty a sad BRAKE type f
ker who will go out with a dash cam, be a nuisance themselves baiting another car into a poor overtake then only provide what suits.
ker who will go out with a dash cam, be a nuisance themselves baiting another car into a poor overtake then only provide what suits.EU_Foreigner said:
My daughter had a NIP for an overtake over a solid line (the car was turning into a drive).
Guess any "absolute offence" is an easy target.
I guess you took the line that as there was no way of confirming the date/time in the video there was no way you could confirm who was driving? Guess any "absolute offence" is an easy target.
Black_S3 said:
I think it should be ignored completely unless it helps with investigating a serious incident that has been reported separately ie RTC. There's plenty a sad BRAKE type fker who will go out with a dash cam, be a nuisance themselves baiting another car into a poor overtake then only provide what suits.
Hypothetically, what if the “incident” was illegal and could have resulted in potential fatalities but didn’t, maybe due to luck or others taking avoiding action?ker who will go out with a dash cam, be a nuisance themselves baiting another car into a poor overtake then only provide what suits.Countdown said:
Hypothetically, what if the “incident” was illegal and could have resulted in potential fatalities but didn’t, maybe due to luck or others taking avoiding action?
Personally I still disagree with the idea of the public gathering evidence of run of the mill road traffic offences.... In the same way I disagree with any vigilante groups that do similar..... The cause and will might be good, but I don't see it as the way forward.... Just my opinion One would hope that they would take the same view as if you were stopped at the time for the incident - ie, if just a trivial matter (causing someone to brake as you had not indicated as an example) compared with ignoring a traffic sign (say as a complete random thought, ignoring a left only sign) .... one would warrant words of advice and the other an offer of a small fine.....
The disadvantage though, and surely those reviewing the footage will know is that after several weeks have passed, one wouldn't remember the incident and will only have a 3rd party view of it, which could be tainted.
The disadvantage though, and surely those reviewing the footage will know is that after several weeks have passed, one wouldn't remember the incident and will only have a 3rd party view of it, which could be tainted.
Drumroll said:
You clearly think you are special as you broke the law and instead of just saying "yes I did it," you went on to explain why you thought it was OK for you to be exempt from the law.
If that is not the case please explain in more detail.
As for being on my high horse I simply asked a question and have a different viewpoint to you (A view that the law clearly agrees with).
I sent the Nip back straight away saying it was me and then when the prosecution form came I ticked guilty. No trying to get out of it. I explained the situation as I did to show I wasn’t driving dangerously, nobody was put in danger or inconvenienced or held up by what I did. The form itself asks for any mitigating circumstances so I explained my actions. If that is not the case please explain in more detail.
As for being on my high horse I simply asked a question and have a different viewpoint to you (A view that the law clearly agrees with).
Despite the signage what I did is arguably the safer option at that particular junction even if there was other traffic on the main road.
I didn’t anywhere explain why I am or should be exempt from the law?
As for high horsey antics you asked a question that didn’t need asking regards the thread and came across rather sanctimonious in doing so. Especially as you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.
RB Will said:
I sent the Nip back straight away saying it was me and then when the prosecution form came I ticked guilty. No trying to get out of it. I explained the situation as I did to show I wasn’t driving dangerously, nobody was put in danger or inconvenienced or held up by what I did. The form itself asks for any mitigating circumstances so I explained my actions.
Despite the signage what I did is arguably the safer option at that particular junction even if there was other traffic on the main road.
I didn’t anywhere explain why I am or should be exempt from the law?
As for high horsey antics you asked a question that didn’t need asking regards the thread and came across rather sanctimonious in doing so. Especially as you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.
Did the police say if the person providing the dashcam footage had made a statement and was prepared to go to court?Despite the signage what I did is arguably the safer option at that particular junction even if there was other traffic on the main road.
I didn’t anywhere explain why I am or should be exempt from the law?
As for high horsey antics you asked a question that didn’t need asking regards the thread and came across rather sanctimonious in doing so. Especially as you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.
Black_S3 said:
Personally I still disagree with the idea of the public gathering evidence of run of the mill road traffic offences.... In the same way I disagree with any vigilante groups that do similar..... The cause and will might be good, but I don't see it as the way forward.... Just my opinion
I have been back and forth on this. All citizens have a civic duty to help police officers to prevent crime and discover offenders. That being the case it's not really fair to disagree with people doing their duty as laid out. I am sure the line will get drawn at some point Black_S3 said:
Personally I still disagree with the idea of the public gathering evidence of run of the mill road traffic offences.... In the same way I disagree with any vigilante groups that do similar..... The cause and will might be good, but I don't see it as the way forward.... Just my opinion
They aren't being vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, they are providing witness evidence which is what people have been required to do all along. It's just now there is greater balance to their evidence because it is either supported or undermined by video.They can't demand what action is taken, the Police/CPS will with regard to the usual tests.
RB Will said:
I got done via dashcam reporting for turning right at a left turn only T junction.
The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
..and pedestrians about to cross at junction?The move was safe, no cars approaching in either direction (car approaching the junction from behind me reported me)
Despite me explaining the situation and how safe it was I still had to cough up about £150 (no points)
So I would say yes they will go for any simple prosecution rather than dismissing minor stuff and concentrating or dangerous driving etc.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff