Snitches get stitches

[Newton472]

Given the one in four statistic in the article below, the likelihood of needing to defend spurious claims from submitted dashcam footage seems to be increasing and although there are many avenues of defence it may all start to get costly. I wonder are there any legal cost insurance policies out there available to cover this?

I believe there was a licence defence policy which would cover costs in the event of a ban provided you didn’t have more than six points, but a spurious dash cam footage defence policy could be cost effective as things get more litigious.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-ne...

[T6 vanman]

From the report

"The RAC found that footage submitted to police related to the following offences: dangerous driving, careless driving/driving without due care and attention, driving too close to cyclists, contravening red traffic lights, contravening ‘no entry’ signs, illegal use of a handheld mobile phone and evidence of vehicles apparently without MOTs."

I'd be happier if during my commute I didn't encounter other users of the road driving dangerously, or not paying attention, performing kamikaze manoeuvres on cyclists, running red lights, driving the incorrect way down one way roads, being distracted by using their mobile phone & using unchecked or unroadworthy vehicles

Maybe Twig could give us a quote for an insurance policies where you want indemnity whilst doing the above

Edited by T6 vanman on Saturday 6th February 17:00

[Glenn63]

People driving like proper bellends I have no issue them being reported but I do wonder how many hours of police time will be wasted by the new ‘road captains’ sending in footage of them being safely overtaken while they do 40 in a NSL. There should be fines for wasting police time if no crime committed.

[vikingaero]

RAC (our friends in motoring apparently) issue press release. Lazy fleet journo regurgitates it as evidence he's doing some work.

There used to be a company called St Christopher Insurance who provided a Chuaffeur inthe event of disqualification.

[DanielSan]

Glenn63 said:

People driving like proper bellends I have no issue them being reported but I do wonder how many hours of police time will be wasted by the new ‘road captains’ sending in footage of them being safely overtaken while they do 40 in a NSL. There should be fines for wasting police time if no crime committed.

I like this idea. Seems fair after all. I'd say 150 quid fine would would fair for every none offence video sent in.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Glenn63 said:

People driving like proper bellends I have no issue them being reported but I do wonder how many hours of police time will be wasted by the new ‘road captains’ sending in footage of them being safely overtaken while they do 40 in a NSL. There should be fines for wasting police time if no crime committed.

Plus you’ve got the mental sorts who incite an incident so they have something to record.

[Countdown]

Glenn63 said:

People driving like proper bellends I have no issue them being reported but I do wonder how many hours of police time will be wasted by the new ‘road captains’ sending in footage of them being safely overtaken while they do 40 in a NSL. There should be fines for wasting police time if no crime committed.

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

[Dogwatch]

Countdown said:

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

Plod would be swamped. Malicious/revenge stuff should be penalised though.

[Derek Smith]

Countdown said:

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

It saves no time of officers. In fact, it occupies time by more offences being submitted, reviews, file submission and court cases.

However, given some of the videos I've seen, I think it's probably resources well used.

I've seen one chap at a roundabout fail to conform to giveway lines, brake to a halt to avoid a car, driven perfectly legally, and then point to a dashcam. I'd love to know what became of that if he submitted it. If I'd had a dashcam, I'd have submitted it. The driver of the other car was visibly upset.

[anonymous-user]

Newton472 said:

Given the one in four statistic in the article below, the likelihood of needing to defend spurious claims from submitted dashcam footage seems to be increasing and although there are many avenues of defence it may all start to get costly. I wonder are there any legal cost insurance policies out there available to cover this?

I believe there was a licence defence policy which would cover costs in the event of a ban provided you didn’t have more than six points, but a spurious dash cam footage defence policy could be cost effective as things get more litigious.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-ne...

Why does it?

[Countdown]

Derek Smith said:

Countdown said:

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

It saves no time of officers. In fact, it occupies time by more offences being submitted, reviews, file submission and court cases.

How many cases of "poor driving" would one Traffic Officer on patrol deal with on any particular shift, compared with one officer reviewing submitted dashcam videos? Also whilst file submission and court cases takes time, isn't that what the Police are meant to be doing? I

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Derek Smith said:

Countdown said:

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

It saves no time of officers. In fact, it occupies time by more offences being submitted, reviews, file submission and court cases.

How many cases of "poor driving" would one Traffic Officer on patrol deal with on any particular shift, compared with one officer reviewing submitted dashcam videos? Also whilst file submission and court cases takes time, isn't that what the Police are meant to be doing? I

It may be more efficient from a time / outcome point of view, but it isn't saving any time. It's adding more demand on top of existing demand.

[Derek Smith]

La Liga said:

Countdown said:

Derek Smith said:

Countdown said:

And, given the dangers that proper bellendery creates, would it be reasonable to reward people who submit footage that results in a conviction? It could be argued that they have saved police time by doing their job for them.

It saves no time of officers. In fact, it occupies time by more offences being submitted, reviews, file submission and court cases.

How many cases of "poor driving" would one Traffic Officer on patrol deal with on any particular shift, compared with one officer reviewing submitted dashcam videos? Also whilst file submission and court cases takes time, isn't that what the Police are meant to be doing? I

It may be more efficient from a time / outcome point of view, but it isn't saving any time. It's adding more demand on top of existing demand.

Perhaps if I'd said something like - It saves no time of officers. In fact, it occupies time by more offences being submitted, reviews, file submission and court cases - he would have understood.

Or maybe not.

[Randy Winkman]

Does PH really want a thread with this title? And anyway, what has it got to do with the subject of the thread itself?

[Derek Smith]

Randy Winkman said:

Does PH really want a thread with this title? And anyway, what has it got to do with the subject of the thread itself?

You've had 9000 posts, and yet you still have to ask.

[ShampooEfficient]

vikingaero said:

There used to be a company called St Christopher Insurance who provided a Chuaffeur inthe event of disqualification.

There used to be one called St Michael who provided new underpants after a terrifying crash.

[Ahonen]

ShampooEfficient said:

vikingaero said:

There used to be a company called St Christopher Insurance who provided a Chuaffeur inthe event of disqualification.

There used to be one called St Michael who provided new underpants after a terrifying crash.

[Randy Winkman]

Derek Smith said:

Randy Winkman said:

Does PH really want a thread with this title? And anyway, what has it got to do with the subject of the thread itself?

You've had 9000 posts, and yet you still have to ask.

Perhaps after that many posts I should just accept that the site and the moderators have certain biases.

[hyphen]

Randy Winkman said:

Does PH really want a thread with this title? And anyway, what has it got to do with the subject of the thread itself?

Are you going to grass the OP up to the mods?

[davhill]

While I was test driving the car I own now, a stupid woman appeared from my left and wiped the corner off the car for me.
The cops were called but didn't show. However, a kndly soul had got the crunch on dashcam and sent me the footage.
Of course, people were doing their best to make it my fault, which I knew it wasn't.

I looked very carefully at the footage, which showed clearly that she was...

On the wrong side of the road.

Exceeding the speed limit

When she clouted me, she was turning right and her car spun out.

So, I took some still frames out of the footage and sent them, with the footage,
to the insurance company. Not a word was heard since. (It was the selling dealer's insurance policy).

Dashcams have their uses. I have one in the car now...permanently.





I liked the car anyway so I bought it. The vendor had a replacement (old) bumper moulding fitted
and painted and put a crappy old pair of headlights on. However, he'd had the clutch replaced and
ever since, I've been giving the car the service history it didn't have.