Dash Cam Speeding
Discussion
ClockworkCupcake said:
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. 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.
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.
If you cross double white lines though, you've crossed double white lines.
Christ! I reported the bloke I describe above because he seriously did endanger not only my life and that of my passenger, but his own and those of others in the immediate vicinity. The car was a full-on 150mph+ V8 mid-engined two seater worth £50k even at its age (ten years). If this is typical of his driving then he will kill someone sooner or later if left to continue. I've driven more than a million miles since I passed my test and have never been so close to disaster before. Even then I was unsure about reporting him. If I reported every minor law breaker I saw I'd be very busy indeed. This event, though, was outrageous - not a mere peccadillo like speeding or crossing a solid white line for a few feet.
Dishcloth said:
Derek Smith said:
I spoke with a chap in charge of a process unit some time ago and brought up this matter. He was of the opinion that dashcam footage is unlikely to be used as the sole evidence of speeding. He suggested that a few years ago he would have said never, but now realises you never can tell.
However, it has been used as evidence of excessive speed for the conditions. I failed either to ask or remember whether it was the offender's dashcam or that of a witness.
Then you and he are not seeking the right advice or assistance.However, it has been used as evidence of excessive speed for the conditions. I failed either to ask or remember whether it was the offender's dashcam or that of a witness.
Merely punishing rather than educating (where appropriate) which can be considered the best option, and they may well feel that seeking "the right advice" from an expert with an over developed god complex is completely unnecessary.
Here we have a bit of spirited driving that was shared with Cumbria Police, due to the nature of the following bit of footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9oPGLkaH8g
They collected the original (clearer) footage for analysis and a witness statement, then interviewed the driver who was the only person insured for the vehicle... and perhaps took on board my comment that I regarded the drivers attitude when questioned as an important element in choosing whether he should face court or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXrcjRi3zqY
It was felt that the driver would benefit from some further instruction... perhaps given that they slowed down for the speed camera, there by saving dozens of lives in the process.
Mill Wheel said:
Of course it is still an option for real policemen to determine what the best course of action is to take with regards to a driver whose behaviour falls short of the expected norm, or even the legal requirement and they may feel that there is little to be gained from prosecution for its own sake.
Merely punishing rather than educating (where appropriate) which can be considered the best option, and they may well feel that seeking "the right advice" from an expert with an over developed god complex is completely unnecessary.
Here we have a bit of spirited driving that was shared with Cumbria Police, due to the nature of the following bit of footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9oPGLkaH8g
They collected the original (clearer) footage for analysis and a witness statement, then interviewed the driver who was the only person insured for the vehicle... and perhaps took on board my comment that I regarded the drivers attitude when questioned as an important element in choosing whether he should face court or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXrcjRi3zqY
It was felt that the driver would benefit from some further instruction... perhaps given that they slowed down for the speed camera, there by saving dozens of lives in the process.
Second one, had they not gone the wrong side of the keep left wouldn't have been an issue.Merely punishing rather than educating (where appropriate) which can be considered the best option, and they may well feel that seeking "the right advice" from an expert with an over developed god complex is completely unnecessary.
Here we have a bit of spirited driving that was shared with Cumbria Police, due to the nature of the following bit of footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9oPGLkaH8g
They collected the original (clearer) footage for analysis and a witness statement, then interviewed the driver who was the only person insured for the vehicle... and perhaps took on board my comment that I regarded the drivers attitude when questioned as an important element in choosing whether he should face court or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXrcjRi3zqY
It was felt that the driver would benefit from some further instruction... perhaps given that they slowed down for the speed camera, there by saving dozens of lives in the process.
In fact, given the nature of the car the first (had it not been a borderline unnecessary section of double lines) was probably ok too - wouldn't overtake in a micra there but an RS6 it;d be no bother given the power available.
kiethton said:
Second one, had they not gone the wrong side of the keep left wouldn't have been an issue.
In fact, given the nature of the car the first (had it not been a borderline unnecessary section of double lines) was probably ok too - wouldn't overtake in a micra there but an RS6 it;d be no bother given the power available.
To me, the second was daft on many levels. The cyclist, junctions, wrong side of a 'Keep Left' and the speed in that location.In fact, given the nature of the car the first (had it not been a borderline unnecessary section of double lines) was probably ok too - wouldn't overtake in a micra there but an RS6 it;d be no bother given the power available.
The first was a technical infringement only (crossing double whites) and ignoring the double whites was a non-event. I couldn't care a less about it.
Mind you, I wouldn't have volunteered the footage anyway (even if I did have a dashcam) unless there had been an incident. If everyone else wasn't going so slow, he might not have made either manoeuver in the first place. I see that sort of driving as an unwanted side-effect of the ongoing unnecessary push to slow traffic everywhere.
motco said:
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.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?
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.
The 14-day period in section 1 RTOA doesn't apply in those circumstances, section 2 applies. The police can't warn for an offence within 14 days if they don't yet know the offence has occurred.
Sometimes you simply have to read more than one section of a law.
Tablecloth said:
Bad advice again.
The 14-day period in section 1 RTOA doesn't apply in those circumstances, section 2 applies. The police can't warn for an offence within 14 days if they don't yet know the offence has occurred.
Sometimes you simply have to read more than one section of a law.
....in which case it turns into 6 months?The 14-day period in section 1 RTOA doesn't apply in those circumstances, section 2 applies. The police can't warn for an offence within 14 days if they don't yet know the offence has occurred.
Sometimes you simply have to read more than one section of a law.
Tablecloth said:
motco said:
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.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?
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.
The 14-day period in section 1 RTOA doesn't apply in those circumstances, section 2 applies. The police can't warn for an offence within 14 days if they don't yet know the offence has occurred.
Sometimes you simply have to read more than one section of a law.
I'm assuming people saw this earlier in the year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
ellingtj said:
I'm assuming people saw this earlier in the year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
All done from the video file the same as the M40 case.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
Here's another; all from the headcam. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/w...
...and there's more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reckless-bike...
...oh! more here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFB05gZ5JQM
...ooops, another one: http://www.visordown.com/news/videos/motorcyclist-...
...this hurt: http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/video-police-r...
Unfortunately I can't see any of the M40 case in the news media. These should do you though. All videos were used to recover speeds in these incidents and all provided by the riders and drivers. The M40 was provided by an driver who was not himself a part of the group of drivers in the video.
Dashcam speeding is a fact of driving now.
Tablecloth said:
ellingtj said:
I'm assuming people saw this earlier in the year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
All done from the video file the same as the M40 case.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
Here's another; all from the headcam. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/w...
...and there's more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reckless-bike...
...oh! more here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFB05gZ5JQM
...ooops, another one: http://www.visordown.com/news/videos/motorcyclist-...
...this hurt: http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/video-police-r...
Unfortunately I can't see any of the M40 case in the news media. These should do you though. All videos were used to recover speeds in these incidents and all provided by the riders and drivers. The M40 was provided by an driver who was not himself a part of the group of drivers in the video.
Dashcam speeding is a fact of driving now.
Davidonly said:
Tablecloth said:
ellingtj said:
I'm assuming people saw this earlier in the year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
All done from the video file the same as the M40 case.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...
Here's another; all from the headcam. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/w...
...and there's more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reckless-bike...
...oh! more here too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFB05gZ5JQM
...ooops, another one: http://www.visordown.com/news/videos/motorcyclist-...
...this hurt: http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/video-police-r...
Unfortunately I can't see any of the M40 case in the news media. These should do you though. All videos were used to recover speeds in these incidents and all provided by the riders and drivers. The M40 was provided by an driver who was not himself a part of the group of drivers in the video.
Dashcam speeding is a fact of driving now.
And although Tablecloth obviously is still following this thread, he still hasn't produced the evidence to support his claim.
What a surprise.
jm doc said:
That's the point isn't it. Much as Tablecloth and his scammer mates would dearly love it to be so, I am not aware of any cases of simple speeding reported by a member of the public using dashcam video as corroboration being prosecuted.
And although Tablecloth obviously is still following this thread, he still hasn't produced the evidence to support his claim.
What a surprise.
Yep. Plenty of opportunities to prove his case. No evidence produced.And although Tablecloth obviously is still following this thread, he still hasn't produced the evidence to support his claim.
What a surprise.
Videos of police using their calibrated dash cams does not prove that MOPs can use theirs.
If there is no evidence of an MOPs dashcam footage being used for SPEEDING (not dangerous/reckless driving or any other offence), I say it's bollards.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff