Dashcam - Asking for trouble?

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances

So you say.

You appear to be in a minority of one on this.

Was he charged & convicted with careless?
If not why not if it's as you contest?

I have no idea. I've not found any report that he was - but simple careless (as has already been pointed out, this was before DBCD) is a relatively trivial offence, so quite likely that it wasn't reported.

People got charged with careless where there was evidence of it in fatality collisions prior to death by careless being introduced.

TooMany2cvs said:

Don't forget that the biker who survived was explicitly not charged with anything relating to the collision, either. His Dangerous charges related to his riding in the minutes before the collision.

So what?
People usually tend to get charged with dangerous from a continued course of action rather than in isolated incidents.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Someone did pay, the guy who died & his family/friend.
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances & the rider's actions are no small part in the authorities not being able to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the burden of proof in our courts.
The driver will have also paid in other ways, because it's something that will affect him the rest of his life.

Try taking off your law-coloured spectacles for a moment

Why when I'm talking about it from a legal stand point?

[anonymous-user]

Pete317 said:

But someone died, so someone has to pay.

2/3rds of fatal collisions result in no prosecutions. That data does include single collisions.

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

That old chestnut

The old chestnut i.e. the actual law which people are discussing.

[anonymous-user]

untakenname said:

For those worried about self incrimination then the smaller the sd card the better, a 1gb would only record 10 minutes or so of footage before looping and wiping.

I've got a 64gb card but have a very discrete hardwire where the dashcam has been taken apart and the lens extended then all placed behind the rainsensor plastic shielding that the rear view mirror hangs off, unless you're looking for it you can't see it.

Some Amberella chipset dashcams can be changed so that the gps speed can be set to mph but have kph shown on the osd so if you're doing 100mph it shows you as doing 60 instead.

Edited by untakenname on Friday 28th October 13:28

Sounds interesting how you've done this, any photos? Thanks

Edited by AVV EM on Sunday 30th October 14:49

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Someone did pay, the guy who died & his family/friend.
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances & the rider's actions are no small part in the authorities not being able to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the burden of proof in our courts.
The driver will have also paid in other ways, because it's something that will affect him the rest of his life.

Try taking off your law-coloured spectacles for a moment

Why when I'm talking about it from a legal stand point?

We know

[TooMany2cvs]

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Ken Figenus said:

Then someone arrives at warp speed as he actions his manoeuvre. No reasonable time to react.

95 in a 60? 15m/s closing?

Have you measured the rider's speed & the vehicle he collided with?

Did you notice that there's a speedo clearly in shot?

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Ken Figenus said:

Then someone arrives at warp speed as he actions his manoeuvre. No reasonable time to react.

95 in a 60? 15m/s closing?

Have you measured the rider's speed & the vehicle he collided with?

Did you notice that there's a speedo clearly in shot?

There's a speedo on the camera bike, the bike in front is pulling away from the camera bike.
How have you measured the bike pulling away from it's speed & how have you measured the car the bike clipped's speed to get your claimed 35mph differential?

[tapereel]

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Ken Figenus said:

Then someone arrives at warp speed as he actions his manoeuvre. No reasonable time to react.

95 in a 60? 15m/s closing?

Have you measured the rider's speed & the vehicle he collided with?

Did you notice that there's a speedo clearly in shot?

There's a speedo on the camera bike, the bike in front is pulling away from the camera bike.
How have you measured the bike pulling away from it's speed & how have you measured the car the bike clipped's speed to get your claimed 35mph differential?

It would be possible to get a speed from the crashed bike and a speed for the last 50m or so for the car that the bike collides with. I haven't done that but it is possible.
I very much doubt any other contributor here has made the measurement.
It is sad the chap was killed but it was a poor attempt at an overtake and the car driver was not to blame for the collision in my opinion.

[vonhosen]

tapereel said:

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Ken Figenus said:

Then someone arrives at warp speed as he actions his manoeuvre. No reasonable time to react.

95 in a 60? 15m/s closing?

Have you measured the rider's speed & the vehicle he collided with?

Did you notice that there's a speedo clearly in shot?

There's a speedo on the camera bike, the bike in front is pulling away from the camera bike.
How have you measured the bike pulling away from it's speed & how have you measured the car the bike clipped's speed to get your claimed 35mph differential?

It would be possible to get a speed from the crashed bike and a speed for the last 50m or so for the car that the bike collides with. I haven't done that but it is possible.
I very much doubt any other contributor here has made the measurement.
It is sad the chap was killed but it was a poor attempt at an overtake and the car driver was not to blame for the collision in my opinion.

I know it's possible, I'm asking TooMany2cvs if he has done it though.
(I suspect he's more likely pulled them out of his nostril though - for that read attributed the second bike's speedo reading to the first bike, despite it pulling away & just made a baseless assumption that the car was travelling at the speed limit).

[anonymous-user]

I've got up to speed on the fatal biker collision. I pretty much agree with all Von has written.

What I would add is it isn't that far into the road (after the junction) which would add to the driver's expectation that he / she wouldn't have a biker with a 30 MPH+ difference in speed approaching them.

I wouldn't have done the over-take that the car driver did with on-coming vehicles. The following distance between him / her and the vehicle he / she was over-taking was too close, too.

[cmaguire]

La Liga said:

I wouldn't have done the over-take that the car driver did with on-coming vehicles. The following distance between him / her and the vehicle he / she was over-taking was too close, too.

There you go then, that explains it. He was too preoccupied with getting away with his own dodgy overtake to be concerned about what was going on behind. In no way to blame.

I put it to you that if a road user makes a manoeuver that deviates from their existing course that there is an onus on them to make sure it is safe to do so. If the view behind or in front does not allow that then don't make the move. Whether the bike was doing 95 or 120 is fairly academic. Bikes don't have the ability to change direction at speed anywhere near as quickly as a car so the trajectory of a bike at speed is far more predictable.
The driver didn't look properly and was carrying out an ill-advised manouever as well, and using the bike's speed as an excuse for that is lame.
How about the driver and 'that old chestnut'? I don't expect the rider thought that was going to happen. Exactly whose expectations were more likely?

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

La Liga said:

I wouldn't have done the over-take that the car driver did with on-coming vehicles. The following distance between him / her and the vehicle he / she was over-taking was too close, too.

There you go then, that explains it. He was too preoccupied with getting away with his own dodgy overtake to be concerned about what was going on behind. In no way to blame.

Not necessarily. They may have used their mirrors reasonably even if other aspects weren't as good as they could have been.

cmaguire said:

I put it to you that if a road user makes a manoeuver that deviates from their existing course that there is an onus on them to make sure it is safe to do so. If the view behind or in front does not allow that then don't make the move. Whether the bike was doing 95 or 120 is fairly academic. Bikes don't have the ability to change direction at speed anywhere near as quickly as a car so the trajectory of a bike at speed is far more predictable.
The driver didn't look properly and was carrying out an ill-advised manouever as well, and using the bike's speed as an excuse for that is lame.

I agree, but we're not sure the driver didn't do what was reasonably expected to make sure it was safe.

cmaguire said:

How about the driver and 'that old chestnut'? I don't expect the rider thought that was going to happen. Exactly whose expectations were more likely?

I think a pack of planning, observations and expectations about risks were issues for both riders.

[V8LM]

The driver in the car was indicating to overtake before the bike was at best just level with the car behind.



I'm not sure the driver of the car, when checking his mirrors before doing his signalling and performing the (careless - vehicles approaching) overtake, would have seen the motorbike doing what is possibly at least 34 mph faster than he.

[Ian Geary]

cmaguire said:

I put it to you that if a road user makes a maneuver that deviates from their existing course that there is an onus on them to make sure it is safe to do so.

I’d agree with this, but it’s a shame the biker wasn't thinking the same thing

cmaguire said:

If the view behind or in front does not allow that then don't make the move.

And Vonhosen’s point all along has been that there is no way to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that the car driver didn’t do this when he started his manouevere.

The screen shot above shows the Fiesta had committed to the overtake before the bike had passed the car behind. Recall: mirror, signal, maneuver.

It’s entirely arguable that the “mirror” bit took place whilst the biker was still behind, or at least obscured by the Peugeot, and unless the driver openly admitted they simply didn’t check their mirrors, that would be enough doubt to make a careless prosecution untenable in my view.

cmaguire said:

Whether the bike was doing 95 or 120 is fairly academic. Bikes don't have the ability to change direction at speed anywhere near as quickly as a car…

Ok, I know we’re not criticising the rider here, but this is a weak start to an argument…

cmaguire said:

so the trajectory of a bike at speed is far more predictable.

…and it doesn’t get better. This assumes the bike is visible to the car driver [ or ] the car driver has seen the bike, which, as raised previously, is by no means certain, or can be proven byond doubt in court.

cmaguire said:

The driver didn't look properly and was carrying out an ill-advised manouever as well,

If you took the bikers out of the equation, the Fiesta’s manouvere isn’t that bad. It’s a damn site better than the biker’s. The white car does seem to be going somewhat slower than necessary on an open NSL, is well over to the left, and even with hatched markings, there’s space for an overtake.

Maybe the car did see the bike, and thought “he can wait his turn”.

There’s no rule I’m aware of in the HC that says motorbikes should always be allowed to overtake first.

cmaguire said:

and using the bike's speed as an excuse for that is lame.

But the biker’s speed is 100% the critical point here (in the context of why no prosecution of the car for careless driving), as it’s the one factor that gives the Fiesta driver’s legal rep a basis on which to argue they were not careless.


All in all, as a biker myself, I don’t think the car driver “has to pay” and agree totally with Vonhosen’s reading of the situation.

Its awful the biker was killed. Its awful the car driver’s actions resulted in this death, but we’re looking at it from a clear POV behind, and assuming the car driver had the same information available to him, when clearly he didn’t.

In a non legal, "real life" sense, I don't think the driver is blameless by any means, but I would put blame somewhere like 80:20 to the rider.




Ian

[cmaguire]

I'd put it 50:50.

Where the disparity appears to exist between my opinion and others in this thread is in what I believe constitutes adequately 'looking' prior to action and what they believe is acceptable. I look long enough to gauge the closing speed of any vehicle (to the rear this is predominantly academic as my speed does tend to be higher than anyone else nearby but I do it anyway) and I will also take up a road position that affords the visibility required to do so.
This really isn't very difficult. That car behind the Fiesta should not have created any issues unless the bike had been closing relatively close to the kerb and had swerved out to overtake very late.

In this instance I accept that the riding is also poor, not necessarily because of the speed but the manner of the speed.
My general objection is to the attitude that exists now whereby crap drivers try to excuse their poor/incompetent driving based on the other party's speed.

[drf765]

V8LM said:

The driver in the car was indicating to overtake before the bike was at best just level with the car behind.



I'm not sure the driver of the car, when checking his mirrors before doing his signalling and performing the (careless - vehicles approaching) overtake, would have seen the motorbike doing what is possibly at least 34 mph faster than he.

From that image you can see the car that was involved in the collision already deviated from straight course to move right and indicating. The bike could have been made to stop before reaching that vehicle if the rider had been more observant.
As others have said, shame he was killed.

[sonnenschein3000]

Whats the view on dashcams and potential self-incrimination now?

I'm looking at getting a dashcam because I don't want to fall victim to something like this: https://youtu.be/SeIPZ5f9nX4

But then on the other hand, I don't want any footage which could be used against me for minor motoring infringements


NOTE: To clarify: As a careful and competent driver at all times, I have never committed any minor motoring infringements and I never will do in the future. I have not in the past, and will not in the future inadvertently or otherwise infringe the laws that relate to the rules of the road as I am and will remain a careful and competent driver that has always, and will always pay full attention to the road, its traffic, its lane markings, its sign posts, its traffic lights and other signals, its surroundings as well as anticipate any potential hazards. I will always give full consideration to other road users to ensure that they are not at all inconvenienced by my driving in any way, and I shall always remain at or below the speed limit applicable for the road in the vehicle that I am driving. This is backed up by the fact that in all my years of driving, I have never had any motoring convictions or been involved in any motoring accidents.

The purpose of my post was to investigate the self-incrimination aspect of having one's dashcam analysed by authorities, by asking the question on here in the context of a hypothetical situation whereby if were to make a trivial driving error, and that being captured by a dashcam, what action would be taken by the authorities?
Furthermore, I do not have a dashcam at this present moment, and the responses on this thread in relation to my hypothetical question will not influence my decision to buy one or not buy one.

Edited by sonnenschein3000 on Saturday 23 September 22:17

[Solocle]

Again, the cheeky SD card swap would be virtually undetectable. You could just swallow the incriminating one, mister Bond. Of course, wiping doesn't quite cut it. You'd have to use one of those special overwrite utilities (which writes random data about 35 times). Even then, it's not necessarily foolproof. And suspicious to boot. A duff SD card? Much more inconspicuous.

[liner33]

sonnenschein3000 said:

Whats the view on dashcams and potential self-incrimination now?

I'm looking at getting a dashcam because I don't want to fall victim to something like this: https://youtu.be/SeIPZ5f9nX4

But then on the other hand, I don't want any footage which could be used against me for minor motoring infringements

Of course that video is totally genuine and not fake in any way

[Dr Jekyll]

sonnenschein3000 said:

Whats the view on dashcams and potential self-incrimination now?

I'm looking at getting a dashcam because I don't want to fall victim to something like this: https://youtu.be/SeIPZ5f9nX4

But then on the other hand, I don't want any footage which could be used against me for minor motoring infringements

Thatg settles it, I'm off to buy a dashcam.