Dash Cam Speeding

[Tablecloth]

Derek Smith said:

Can a member of the public give evidence of speed now?

They always could, what world are you living in?

[Caddyshack]

Tablecloth said:

They always could, what world are you living in?

I think he means, can a memember of the public "do you" for speeding now? I.e. No policeman needed to bring about a prosecution for speeding? Can someone with a dash cam say "I can show you this bloke speeding so prosecute please"

You seem a little angry in your responses

[cmaguire]

Caddyshack said:

I think he means, can a memember of the public "do you" for speeding now? I.e. No policeman needed to bring about a prosecution for speeding? Can someone with a dash cam say "I can show you this bloke speeding so prosecute please"

You seem a little angry in your responses

I think you may be confusing angry with smug.

[ClockworkCupcake]

cmaguire said:

I think you may be confusing angry with smug.

I always confuse smug with supercilious and patronising.

[pingu393]

Tablecloth

Can you direct me to any links in the public domain about these seven offences, please?

'Oxford magistrates court dash cam speeding' is bringing up too much unrelated stuff on Google.

Nothing to do with Oxford, but I found this...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news...

All the offences that are evidential by observation as opposed to opinion are there, but speeding is not. This is what I would expect.

I'm not disputing that you got convictions, I just doubt (until proven otherwise) that speeding can be prosecuted from a dash cam without expert testimony, unless it is really excessive.

Edited by pingu393 on Sunday 23 July 22:37

[cmaguire]

ClockworkCupcake said:

I always confuse smug with supercilious and patronising.

Easily done in certain circumstances, or with certain people.

[jm doc]

pingu393 said:

Tablecloth

Can you direct me to any links in the public domain about these seven offences, please?

'Oxford magistrates court dash cam speeding' is bringing up too much unrelated stuff on Google.

And perhaps he can explain why police have to "form an opinion of speeding" before using calibrated equipment to prove you are speeding, and why , except on motorways it requires two police officers to form an opinion on speeding, but one member of the public can do this using uncalibrated equipment?

Show us a link tablecloth, or it's just the usual junk you spout using different user names on this site

[pingu393]

I don't think anyone should have a go at him as he has a very interesting tale to tell.

[sonnenschein3000]

I am genuinely interested in tablecloth's story as it brings about something which we once thought not possible; being caught speeding using the footage from another car's dash cam given that no other incident or offence occurred.

This could change everything. Tablecloth, I would - and I'm sure others on this thread would - be very interested to see the transcript of the court case or a news article or anything which either details or summarises the particulars of what happened. I know you've told us in a nutshell, and I do believe you, but it's such a big jump from what everyone thought about the way speeding needs to be proved vs. the evidence that an amateur dashcam can provide.

Your contribution on here will be golden.

[DocSteve]

So how is it that these community speed watch warriors are not able to effect prosecution but dashcam evidence works just fine?

I cannot be bothered to research the issue but the onus is on "tablecloth" to disclose his/her job description and the legal basis for their claim. Otherwise, the claim and the anecdote regarding the motorway speeding offences are just internet rubbish to me.

[LocoCoco]

oceanview said:

Wow.

This is all very depressing- we might as well get rid of all performance cars now as any overtake that briefly (and even safely) takes you over the limit might upset Mr & Mrs Uptight/dullard and they send the evidence off to the local plod and potentially you kiss goodbye to your licence!

I say "performance cars" as this is likely to upset them more- probably makes you flash/ arrogant/ show-off/ dangerous in there little world, perhaps - who knows but, you will even have to drive within the limits in that hatchback tdi so god help us all!!

Wow, right, I'm getting a dash-cam, will compile as many clips like this as I can then when I inevitably get brought in like this person's daughter, I'm bringing in my compilation and giving them hundreds of other cases to keep them busy with (not really, I'd just get charged with failing to report a crime or something).

Maybe if everybody sent in their clips to the police, they'd get snowed under and would be unable to deal with all the minor ones. Hopefully it costs them more to investigate/prosecute these things than they get back in fines.

[DaveCWK]

sonnenschein3000 said:

I am genuinely interested in tablecloth's story as it brings about something which we once thought not possible; being caught speeding using the footage from another car's dash cam given that no other incident or offence occurred.

This could change everything. Tablecloth, I would - and I'm sure others on this thread would - be very interested to see the transcript of the court case or a news article or anything which either details or summarises the particulars of what happened. I know you've told us in a nutshell, and I do believe you, but it's such a big jump from what everyone thought about the way speeding needs to be proved vs. the evidence that an amateur dashcam can provide.

Your contribution on here will be golden.

+1, please please please can we have some more details?

[xjay1337]

LocoCoco said:

Wow, right, I'm getting a dash-cam, will compile as many clips like this as I can then when I inevitably get brought in like this person's daughter, I'm bringing in my compilation and giving them hundreds of other cases to keep them busy with (not really, I'd just get charged with failing to report a crime or something).

Maybe if everybody sent in their clips to the police, they'd get snowed under and would be unable to deal with all the minor ones. Hopefully it costs them more to investigate/prosecute these things than they get back in fines.

Be careful what you wish for...

I for one would hate it if I go for a blast on a motorway at 3am and some tosspot in the middle lane reported me for going past at XXX mph.

I genuinely don't think it will be a massive issue for most people, most of the time. Then again looking at the level of driving that causes people to accelerate towards a hazard, beep and gesticulate angrily, maybe I should be worried..

[kiethton]

Maybe a schoolboy question but, if they send out an NIP based on dash-cam evidence does it have to be within the normal 14 day period?

In addition with it being a MOP can you just argue the toss over the date and time recorded on the camera/statements - both as MOP's it'd be one word against another so wouldn't go anywhere?

[LocoCoco]

kiethton said:

Maybe a schoolboy question but, if they send out an NIP based on dash-cam evidence does it have to be within the normal 14 day period?

In addition with it being a MOP can you just argue the toss over the date and time recorded on the camera/statements - both as MOP's it'd be one word against another so wouldn't go anywhere?

Interesting question, dunno the answer. I received my NIP 1 working day after the "incident" (Wednesday lunchtime -> Friday morning), there was no time stamp on the video but there were two people in the car so maybe 2 x MOP vs 1 x MOP in my case.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Caddyshack said:

I think he means, can a memember of the public "do you" for speeding now? I.e. No policeman needed to bring about a prosecution for speeding? Can someone with a dash cam say "I can show you this bloke speeding so prosecute please"

You seem a little angry in your responses

I think you may be confusing angry with smug.

.....or stupid.

I wouldn't believe anything 'tablecloth' posts without evidence. Video or otherwise..........

[oyster]

oceanview said:

EU_Foreigner said:

oceanview said:

Wow.

This is all very depressing- we might as well get rid of all performance cars now as any overtake that briefly (and even safely) takes you over the limit might upset Mr & Mrs Uptight/dullard and they send the evidence off to the local plod and potentially you kiss goodbye to your licence!

I say "performance cars" as this is likely to upset them more- probably makes you flash/ arrogant/ show-off/ dangerous in there little world, perhaps - who knows but, you will even have to drive within the limits in that hatchback tdi so god help us all!!

Yep - my daughter got a NIP based on the dashcam footage from a MOP of her crossing a few meters of solid line upon the return after an overtake of a slow moving vehicle. Absolute offense so no defense possible, just highly annoying that those do-gooders get such an elevated position of power.

Blimey!

On ringing my local 101 (Avon &Somerset) number for something that happenend at work- (not motoring related!) , the options they give you to decide where your call is redirected, did include an option to report any dashcam footage you would like to report!!

I think the police could become very busy if people start sending in lots of footage (will they even bother if no accidents/injuries) and some holier than thou people with dashcams might get them selves in bother either through there own driving or dobbing in the "wrong" person and having to think about there own future personal safety!!

Are you 15?

If you can't drive within the laws of the road then YOU are the one in the wrong, not the person 'dobbing' you in. Grow up.

[kiethton]

oyster said:

Are you 15?

If you can't drive within the laws of the road then YOU are the one in the wrong, not the person 'dobbing' you in. Grow up.

Far from it, it's not the job of these dashcam warriors to report all and sundry, editing footage to appear worse than it is, with the intention of having you prosecuted.

It's a job for the police and the police alone, IMO dashcam evidence (apart from that resulting in serious injury/accident/death) shouldn't form the basis of prosecution if not witnessed by plod.

[ClockworkCupcake]

oyster said:

Are you 15?

If you can't drive within the laws of the road then YOU are the one in the wrong, not the person 'dobbing' you in. Grow up.

Really? You've never executed a perfectly safe overtake and had some numpty flashing their lights and wildly gesticulating because you disturbed them from their myopic 40mph-everywhere slumber? They'd be just the kind of person to have a dashcam and send it to the Police because "some maniac in a sports car" overtook them.

I've performed overtakes in the Sagaris when I've been out, past, back in, and halfway up the road before the flashing has started.

[motco]

kiethton said:

Maybe a schoolboy question but, if they send out an NIP based on dash-cam evidence does it have to be within the normal 14 day period?

In addition with it being a MOP can you just argue the toss over the date and time recorded on the camera/statements - both as MOP's it'd be one word against another so wouldn't go anywhere?

Yes it does. I was almost wiped out by a car coming at me at c.80mph in a 40 limit and on the wrong side of a keep-left island. It had been overtaking a line of vehicles and was caught out by the island. It missed me by only a car's length and only then because I braked hard. I caught the registration number, had a witness with me, and have HD dash cam footage. Because I couldn't find out the best way to get this to the police for several days for various reasons, by the time they received it more than fourteen days had passed since the offence. I was told that if I had given it to them earlier and agreed to testify, a prosecution would have been the result, but as it was late they would only give the driver a warning.

As it happens I'm not sure I would have gone to court anyway so the outcome suited me. I would have loved to have told his insurers about it, though. I daresay he would have lost his policy overnight as the car was a very expensive 'supercar' and he was driving like a prick. I am by necessity being vague because the police didn't want any information to reach the offender before they did.