Dashcam - Asking for trouble?

[Dr Jekyll]

TooMany2cvs said:

Overtakes don't count as "necessary".

So what do you make of the law that says you can cross a solid white line if necessary in order to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10MPH?

The overtake doesn't have to be necessary, the entire journey doesn't have to be necessary, only the entry to the hatched area has to be necessary for whatever manoeuvre you are making.

[TooMany2cvs]

Dr Jekyll said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Overtakes don't count as "necessary".

So what do you make of the law that says you can cross a solid white line if necessary in order to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10MPH?

The car being overtaken wasn't doing less than 10mph.

[Dr Jekyll]

TooMany2cvs said:

Dr Jekyll said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Overtakes don't count as "necessary".

So what do you make of the law that says you can cross a solid white line if necessary in order to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10MPH?

The car being overtaken wasn't doing less than 10mph.

Utterly irrelevant. There is no legal distinction between overtaking a car doing less than 10MPH or >= 10MPH.

Can't see the video, but from what I've read it was a hatched area with broken line, not a solid line.

[vonhosen]

Car driver may have checked before moving out, only when he checked the bike was much further back. He is expected to check before moving out (a reasonable time before, nothing in law defines that as being immediately (i.e. half a second before)), he is not expected to be able to assess in his mirrors, that may distort, how fast a bike is moving where it may be far in excess of the limit.

The bike rider, with it all in front of him, is expected to make sure it is safe (with what's in front of him) to overtake before doing so.

On what we can see on the camera the car driver would never be likely to be charged with dangerous driving, whilst careless may be considered if it can be shown that he evidently never 'reasonably' checked before his overtaking of the car in front.

The motorcyclist who died however, has plenty of evidence for dangerous riding on the video including the overtake he attempted which led to his death.

[TooMany2cvs]

vonhosen said:

Car driver may have checked before moving out, only when he checked the bike was much further back. He is expected to check before moving out (a reasonable time before, nothing in law defines that as being immediately (i.e. half a second before)), he is not expected to be able to assess in his mirrors, that may distort, how fast a bike is moving where it may be far in excess of the limit.

It appears to be NSL. So the bike - with headlight on - was only travelling 35mph over the limit. Fifteen metres further per second compared to a vehicle at the speed limit.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Car driver may have checked before moving out, only when he checked the bike was much further back. He is expected to check before moving out (a reasonable time before, nothing in law defines that as being immediately (i.e. half a second before)), he is not expected to be able to assess in his mirrors, that may distort, how fast a bike is moving where it may be far in excess of the limit.

The bike rider, with it all in front of him, is expected to make sure it is safe (with what's in front of him) to overtake before doing so.

On what we can see on the camera the car driver would never be likely to be charged with dangerous driving, whilst careless may be considered if it can be shown that he evidently never 'reasonably' checked before his overtaking of the car in front.

The motorcyclist who died however, has plenty of evidence for dangerous riding on the video including the overtake he attempted which led to his death.

Replace the overtaking car with a tipper truck turning left, and the bike with a cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic before darting down the left side of the truck, and would your attitude to mirror checks change any?

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Car driver may have checked before moving out, only when he checked the bike was much further back. He is expected to check before moving out (a reasonable time before, nothing in law defines that as being immediately (i.e. half a second before)), he is not expected to be able to assess in his mirrors, that may distort, how fast a bike is moving where it may be far in excess of the limit.

The bike rider, with it all in front of him, is expected to make sure it is safe (with what's in front of him) to overtake before doing so.

On what we can see on the camera the car driver would never be likely to be charged with dangerous driving, whilst careless may be considered if it can be shown that he evidently never 'reasonably' checked before his overtaking of the car in front.

The motorcyclist who died however, has plenty of evidence for dangerous riding on the video including the overtake he attempted which led to his death.

Replace the overtaking car with a tipper truck turning left, and the bike with a cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic before darting down the left side of the truck, and would your attitude to mirror checks change any?

No, what's expected of the driver is the same as I stated & what's expected of the bike rider too.
(Saying that as a drive/rider of buses, articulated lorries, cars, motorcycles & pedal cycles).

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

Car driver may have checked before moving out, only when he checked the bike was much further back. He is expected to check before moving out (a reasonable time before, nothing in law defines that as being immediately (i.e. half a second before)), he is not expected to be able to assess in his mirrors, that may distort, how fast a bike is moving where it may be far in excess of the limit.

It appears to be NSL. So the bike - with headlight on - was only travelling 35mph over the limit. Fifteen metres further per second compared to a vehicle at the speed limit.

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

[TooMany2cvs]

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

So only one person can be in the wrong, can they?
I'm sure that the dead guy would have been prosecuted, too, if there was any point...

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

So only one person can be in the wrong, can they?
I'm sure that the dead guy would have been prosecuted, too, if there was any point...

That's not what I said.
I said that there could be a careless by the car driver where it can be shown that he didn't 'reasonably' check his mirrors.
The faster the bike is going etc the harder it will be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver didn't check reasonably in the mirrors before making his move. Where it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt the action in isolation would amount to a Sec 3 careless, unlike the bikers catalogue of riding up to that point & actions in his overtake that resulted in the collision.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

Same as if the biker had been doing 35mph and the car had pulled out of a parking place in front of him

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

Same as if the biker had been doing 35mph and the car had pulled out of a parking place in front of him

That wouldn't have been a) 35mph over the limit, b) the car wouldn't have been established in a traffic flow as in the circumstances of the video.
So no, not the same.

[TooMany2cvs]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

Same as if the biker had been doing 35mph and the car had pulled out of a parking place in front of him

That wouldn't have been a) 35mph over the limit, b) the car wouldn't have been established in a traffic flow as in the circumstances of the video.
So no, not the same.

His point is very clear - yet you still missed it. The bike's closing speed on the car would have been exactly the same. If you can't see a motorbike with headlight on 30m - two seconds - from you, then you probably should have gone to Specsavers. Or... looked in your sodding mirror before pulling out.

Whether the bike was being driven at a legal speed or not is kinda irrelevant.

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

Same as if the biker had been doing 35mph and the car had pulled out of a parking place in front of him

That wouldn't have been a) 35mph over the limit, b) the car wouldn't have been established in a traffic flow as in the circumstances of the video.
So no, not the same.

His point is very clear - yet you still missed it. The bike's closing speed on the car would have been exactly the same. If you can't see a motorbike with headlight on 30m - two seconds - from you, then you probably should have gone to Specsavers. Or... looked in your sodding mirror before pulling out.

Whether the bike was being driven at a legal speed or not is kinda irrelevant.

But the circumstances of moving off from stationary & the workload when already moving forward towards hazards at speed are very different.
So the circumstances, including the speeding of the motorcycle in the circumstances it was, do become relevant.

It is quite usual & reasonable when moving off from a parking space into traffic on a single carriageway road to expect that there may be vehicles approaching you from behind at c30mph & that you will be moving into their path (the actions of that approaching driver are also likely to be deemed reasonable in those circumstances.) It is not the same for expecting a vehicle to be overtaking c35mph more than the limit in the circumstances of the video (where that rider's actions are likely to be deemed unreasonable in doing so).

i.e. I didn't miss the point he was making, it's that they are not analogous just because the 30mph & 35mph are similar numbers, the circumstances/expectations & reasonable actions of reasonable drivers/riders make them quite different.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th October 19:48

[anonymous-user]

SDarks said:

My questions are

- Can the Police seize dash cam footage if suspected speeding?

Yes, but it's unlikely. If a Constable is on any premises lawfully they can seize evidence relating to an offence.

In the case of a car the entire car could theoretically be seized.

SDarks said:

- In the event of an accident, is all the footage shown/analysed or can you only show short series of the events leading up to the crash and the incident itself?

It would depend on the circumstances, but if other footage showed an offence it could be looked at separately. Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

SDarks said:

- Are any of the cams encrypted so only you can access the footage?

Maybe, but a Constable can require any information in an electronic form to be produced in a manner in which it is visible and legible.

[Bigends]

La Liga said:

SDarks said:

My questions are

- Can the Police seize dash cam footage if suspected speeding?

Yes, but it's unlikely. If a Constable is on any premises lawfully they can seize evidence relating to an offence.

In the case of a car the entire car could theoretically be seized.

SDarks said:

- In the event of an accident, is all the footage shown/analysed or can you only show short series of the events leading up to the crash and the incident itself?

It would depend on the circumstances, but if other footage showed an offence it could be looked at separately. Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

SDarks said:

- Are any of the cams encrypted so only you can access the footage?

Maybe, but a Constable can require any information in an electronic form to be produced in a manner in which it is visible and legible.

What if I dispute the speeding allegation and wish to use MY footage in my defence rather than allowing the prosecution to seize it

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

La Liga said:

SDarks said:

My questions are

- Can the Police seize dash cam footage if suspected speeding?

Yes, but it's unlikely. If a Constable is on any premises lawfully they can seize evidence relating to an offence.

In the case of a car the entire car could theoretically be seized.

SDarks said:

- In the event of an accident, is all the footage shown/analysed or can you only show short series of the events leading up to the crash and the incident itself?

It would depend on the circumstances, but if other footage showed an offence it could be looked at separately. Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

SDarks said:

- Are any of the cams encrypted so only you can access the footage?

Maybe, but a Constable can require any information in an electronic form to be produced in a manner in which it is visible and legible.

What if I dispute the speeding allegation and wish to use MY footage in my defence rather than allowing the prosecution to seize it

The original will be kept for the court. You'll have a copy, they'll have a copy & you can both make your points to support your respective cases which the court can look at on the original.

[TooMany2cvs]

vonhosen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Only 35mph over the limit in those circumstances?
That's not a small amount in the circumstances it all happened. It was all in front of him to see, far easier than it is with the view afforded in people's mirrors & he should know that. What he was doing fell far below what was expected of a competent & careful rider.

Same as if the biker had been doing 35mph and the car had pulled out of a parking place in front of him

That wouldn't have been a) 35mph over the limit, b) the car wouldn't have been established in a traffic flow as in the circumstances of the video.
So no, not the same.

His point is very clear - yet you still missed it. The bike's closing speed on the car would have been exactly the same. If you can't see a motorbike with headlight on 30m - two seconds - from you, then you probably should have gone to Specsavers. Or... looked in your sodding mirror before pulling out.

Whether the bike was being driven at a legal speed or not is kinda irrelevant.

But the circumstances of moving off from stationary & the workload when already moving forward towards hazards at speed are very different.

HGVs are limited to 56mph. Are you suggesting that it just isn't possible for their drivers to see approaching vehicles doing 91mph on a m'way, nor should they be expected to?

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

But the circumstances of moving off from stationary & the workload when already moving forward towards hazards at speed are very different.
So the circumstances, including the speeding of the motorcycle in the circumstances it was, do become relevant.

It is quite usual & reasonable when moving off from a parking space into traffic on a single carriageway road to expect that there may be vehicles approaching you from behind at c30mph & that you will be moving into their path (the actions of that approaching driver are also likely to be deemed reasonable in those circumstances.) It is not the same for expecting a vehicle to be overtaking c35mph more than the limit in the circumstances of the video (where that rider's actions are likely to be deemed unreasonable in doing so).

i.e. I didn't miss the point he was making, it's that they are not analogous just because the 30mph & 35mph are similar numbers, the circumstances/expectations & reasonable actions of reasonable drivers/riders make them quite different.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th October 19:48

I've had people passing me at very high speeds far more times than I can remember, but none have ever taken me by surprise.
Pull out of a parking place and try to use as an excuse the fact that there was nothing coming when you checked your mirrors two seconds previously so you didn't expect anyone to be there now, and see how far you get.

You seem to just want to blame it all on speed.

Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 29th October 20:01

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

La Liga said:

SDarks said:

My questions are

- Can the Police seize dash cam footage if suspected speeding?

Yes, but it's unlikely. If a Constable is on any premises lawfully they can seize evidence relating to an offence.

In the case of a car the entire car could theoretically be seized.

SDarks said:

- In the event of an accident, is all the footage shown/analysed or can you only show short series of the events leading up to the crash and the incident itself?

It would depend on the circumstances, but if other footage showed an offence it could be looked at separately. Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

SDarks said:

- Are any of the cams encrypted so only you can access the footage?

Maybe, but a Constable can require any information in an electronic form to be produced in a manner in which it is visible and legible.

What if I dispute the speeding allegation and wish to use MY footage in my defence rather than allowing the prosecution to seize it

As Von says, standard disclosure.

I've actually be far too simplistic with my first answer. Speeding is a summary only offence so if the person within the 'premises' (the vehicle in the case), tells the Constable they're not allowed in the vehicle, then S.17 of PACE doesn't cover it so I don't see how they would be able to lawfully seize the camera in those circumstances.

I extrapolate this from the generally held view that seizing a mobile phone for using one when driving is thought to be unlawful.