Dash Cam Speeding

Author
Discussion

BMWBen

4,899 posts

200 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
Right, and in those cases it's unlikely you'd get a NIP...

If you cross double white lines though, you've crossed double white lines.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
motco said:
I am by necessity being vague because the police didn't want any information to reach the offender before they did.
Why? Do they think he'll do a runner?

motco

15,919 posts

245 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

motco

15,919 posts

245 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
motco said:
I am by necessity being vague because the police didn't want any information to reach the offender before they did.
Why? Do they think he'll do a runner?
No idea, you'd have to ask a member of the force.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.
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.

kiethton

13,883 posts

179 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.

Tablecloth

255 posts

85 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
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.

sonnenschein3000

710 posts

89 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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?

Nothingtoseehere

7,379 posts

153 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
What a sad society we've become.
Use it in an accident by all means but anything else,you really are the pits.

jm doc

2,776 posts

231 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
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.
Ah so you popped up again! We're all still waiting to see you back up your "fake facts" with hard evidence. Looks like it might be a long wait. loser


SVTRick

3,633 posts

194 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
I have several videos taken using a go pro of me driving and going from a set of lights upto and in excess of 140mph (showing the RPM. Gear and Speed as well)
Never given it a though smile

Not a calibrated device is it.

ellingtj

299 posts

273 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
I'm assuming people saw this earlier in the year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-merseyside...

Tablecloth

255 posts

85 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.

xjay1337

15,966 posts

117 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
My dashcam came in very handy for speeding today.

On the hogs back there were bloody scamera vans. Was doing 65-70 ish.
Quick check of my footage showed me doing 64 past it. Woohoo safe.

Davidonly

1,080 posts

192 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
Those are all aggravated to Dangerous at least ! Not 'speeding' like even an 80mph overtake... I doubt it will happen for years yet.

jm doc

2,776 posts

231 months

Tuesday 25th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
Those are all aggravated to Dangerous at least ! Not 'speeding' like even an 80mph overtake... I doubt it will happen for years yet.
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.


pingu393

7,728 posts

204 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.