Dashcam - Asking for trouble?

[Dr Jekyll]

La Liga said:

Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

It's quite common in dangerous driving cases for evidence of the defendant driving like a prat long before the alleged offence, their 'manner of driving', to be regarded as evidence of the offence.

I would hope that if the dashcam shows the defendant driving perfectly responsibly previous to the incident this would correspondingly help their case. But could it all be disregarded because it isn't relevant to any offence?

[Bigends]

La Liga said:

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.

My thoughts - just lock the doors on exiting the car

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

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?

No.
I'm saying that they are expected to do what is reasonable in relation to their mirror checks, which is reasonably check their mirrors prior to moving out when doing so).
The driver/rider approaching them is expected to have been behaving reasonably when they were looking to pass the lorry, which wouldn't include doing 91mph.
Also the circumstances of the road etc would play a part in what they could reasonably expect in relation to vehicles being there doing that speed.
i.e. multi lane dual carriageway Vs single carriageway road with a vehicle effectively filtering at speed between opposing flows of traffic.

All the circumstances play their part & of the protagonists in the video the bike rider was playing the largest part in his own demise.

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

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

I suspect it's simpler than that. He wants to blame it all on the biker. Speed is merely the excuse he's trying to hang it on.

If it'd been a truck pulling into the path of a car at a 35mph speed differential, the blame would be placed very differently.

<edit: Oh, yes, and his latest post overlapped - and, yep, it's not reasonable for a car driver to watch for bikes at a 35mph speed difference, but it's perfectly reasonable for truck drivers to look for cars at a 35mph speed difference...>

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Saturday 29th October 20:08

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

La Liga said:

Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

It's quite common in dangerous driving cases for evidence of the defendant driving like a prat long before the alleged offence, their 'manner of driving', to be regarded as evidence of the offence.

I would hope that if the dashcam shows the defendant driving perfectly responsibly previous to the incident this would correspondingly help their case. But could it all be disregarded because it isn't relevant to any offence?

I can't see why it couldn't be used in a defensive way in the right circumstances. But then driving non-dangerously is what is expected of the motorist and is unexceptional, where are continuous driving below the legal standard is relevant. If there's only 'one bad instance' of driving then that can be highlighted in other ways during a trial and can be relevant for sentencing.

Bigends said:

La Liga said:

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.

My thoughts - just lock the doors on exiting the car

My only consideration then would be if it were lawful to seize the car itself and then obtain a warrant. I'm not sure. In any event that's not going to be proportional.

[Dr Jekyll]

La Liga said:

Dr Jekyll said:

La Liga said:

Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

It's quite common in dangerous driving cases for evidence of the defendant driving like a prat long before the alleged offence, their 'manner of driving', to be regarded as evidence of the offence.

I would hope that if the dashcam shows the defendant driving perfectly responsibly previous to the incident this would correspondingly help their case. But could it all be disregarded because it isn't relevant to any offence?

I can't see why it couldn't be used in a defensive way in the right circumstances. But then driving non-dangerously is what is expected of the motorist and is unexceptional, where are continuous driving below the legal standard is relevant.

But they can't have it both ways. They cannot say 'The defendant was driving like a prat 20 miles and 40 minutes before the collision, so that makes the witness statement that the collision was his fault more credible. But if it turns out he wasn't driving like a prat after all that's just normal so doesn't undermine the case'.

Previous manner of driving is either relevant or not. It can't be relevant if it suits the prosecution but not otherwise.

[JM]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

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

I suspect it's simpler than that. He wants to blame it all on the biker. Speed is merely the excuse he's trying to hang it on.

If it'd been a truck pulling into the path of a car at a 35mph speed differential, the blame would be placed very differently.

From the video, the car that pulls out to overtake puts its indicator on when the bike is level with the following car. Presuming the driver looked then indicated then the bike was probably obscured by the following car (not helped by the thier own position which appears to be nearer the near side than the folowing cars)

How is the driver 'reasonably' expected to see a bike that isn't visible?

Edited by JM on Saturday 29th October 20:20

[TooMany2cvs]

Dr Jekyll said:

But they can't have it both ways. They cannot say 'The defendant was driving like a prat 20 miles and 40 minutes before the collision, so that makes the witness statement that the collision was his fault more credible. But if it turns out he wasn't driving like a prat after all that's just normal so doesn't undermine the case'.

Previous manner of driving is either relevant or not. It can't be relevant if it suits the prosecution but not otherwise.

In this case, according to the Indy article I posted a link to earlier, he was prosecuted for Dangerous solely for the time leading up to the collision, based on evidence found in the aftermath of the collision. He was not charged for anything relating to the collision itself - and, obviously, any charge relating to the collision would have been Death By Careless/Dangerous.

The question now is whether the Fiesta driver should have been charged with Death by Careless...?

[CYMR0]

TooMany2cvs said:

The question now is whether the Fiesta driver should have been charged with Death by Careless...?

Definitely not - the collision occurred in July 2008 and s.20 of the Road Safety Act 2006, which creates the offence of death by careless, didn't come into force until August 2008.

If it happened today... yes. While the biker was certainly partially responsible in a civil claim, you don't have to be solely or even mainly at fault to be guilty of an offence. I wouldn't say that the driver's positioning or overtake were 'dangerous' for RTA purposes, but I do think they were careless.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

La Liga said:

Dr Jekyll said:

La Liga said:

Any evidence that isn't relevant to an offence wouldn't be taken into consideration.

It's quite common in dangerous driving cases for evidence of the defendant driving like a prat long before the alleged offence, their 'manner of driving', to be regarded as evidence of the offence.

I would hope that if the dashcam shows the defendant driving perfectly responsibly previous to the incident this would correspondingly help their case. But could it all be disregarded because it isn't relevant to any offence?

I can't see why it couldn't be used in a defensive way in the right circumstances. But then driving non-dangerously is what is expected of the motorist and is unexceptional, where are continuous driving below the legal standard is relevant.

But they can't have it both ways. They cannot say 'The defendant was driving like a prat 20 miles and 40 minutes before the collision, so that makes the witness statement that the collision was his fault more credible. But if it turns out he wasn't driving like a prat after all that's just normal so doesn't undermine the case'.

Previous manner of driving is either relevant or not. It can't be relevant if it suits the prosecution but not otherwise.

As I say I expect it can be raised in another way. If the defence ask the investigating officer how long the footage was and if any of the other footage showed anything of note etc. I know this sort of questioning has occurred with footage around violent incidents to make the point you are making.

The point is that we expect people to drive at the required standard just as we expect people not to be aggressive and violent. So if there's CCTV showing both of those things prior to an offence, it's probably not that relevant.

[TooMany2cvs]

CYMR0 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The question now is whether the Fiesta driver should have been charged with Death by Careless...?

Definitely not - the collision occurred in July 2008 and s.20 of the Road Safety Act 2006, which creates the offence of death by careless, didn't come into force until August 2008.

Ah! Yes, good point... Somebody was a very lucky boy.

And simple Careless is borderline-trivial. Fine, 3-9 points, discretionary ban.

CYMR0 said:

If it happened today... yes. While the biker was certainly partially responsible in a civil claim, you don't have to be solely or even mainly at fault to be guilty of an offence.

And that's the point which vonhosen's consistently missing.

CYMR0 said:

I wouldn't say that the driver's positioning or overtake were 'dangerous' for RTA purposes, but I do think they were careless.

Yup.

This kind of thing proves exactly why DBCD is needed.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

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

That old chestnut

[XMT]

spookly said:

It doesn't matter if they record speed. If it looks like you are obviously speeding and it is a serious enough offence committed then it isn't difficult to measure the time between two fixed objects in the video, measure the distance between the objects in the real world, and deduce your speed.

I don't have a dashcam as I wouldn't want to self incriminate. Too many times where I *might* be a little over the limit.

I do drive and ride fast, but also cautiously and defensively. I haven't had a crash, or had anyone hit me, in nearly 20 years.

I did think about getting a dashcam, but decided against, for the reasons above.

exact same for me but 12 years

[cmaguire]

Pete317 said:

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

Assumption is the Mother of all fk-ups.
Expect the unexpected.

What has 'expect' got to do with anything anyway?
Surely when any road user makes a manoeuver that deviates from their current course they have an obligation to make sure they do so safely? I may expect others to be behaving in a certain way but that would never stop me from checking that they are actually doing so, because frankly who gives a st what I expect?
And a speed differential of 35mph is no excuse for crap driving.

[vonhosen]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

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

I suspect it's simpler than that. He wants to blame it all on the biker. Speed is merely the excuse he's trying to hang it on.

If it'd been a truck pulling into the path of a car at a 35mph speed differential, the blame would be placed very differently.

Overtaking in a place at a speed you shouldn't have been.

I haven't said I want to put all the blame on the biker, but that doesn't alter the fact that the rider's actions amount to dangerous driving in law (a catalogue of incidents falling far below what is expected) whilst the car driver's don't. The car driver's amount to careless (an isolated mistake/error falling below the standard expected) only where it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he failed to do what was reasonably expected of him as a competent & careful driver, whilst the biker's actions go some way to undermining the prosecutions ability to do that. It would be fairly easy to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the motorcyclist's riding fell far below what was expected of him, just as the camera rider's did.

TooMany2cvs said:

<edit: Oh, yes, and his latest post overlapped - and, yep, it's not reasonable for a car driver to watch for bikes at a 35mph speed difference, but it's perfectly reasonable for truck drivers to look for cars at a 35mph speed difference...>

You're having comprehension problems.
It would be no more the lorry driver's fault than the car driver's if it had been him who were being overtaken in the circumstances of the video than the car driver. The level of culpability would be the same as the circumstances are. Of course different circumstances can throw up different answers.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th October 21:39

[Bigends]

XMT said:

spookly said:

It doesn't matter if they record speed. If it looks like you are obviously speeding and it is a serious enough offence committed then it isn't difficult to measure the time between two fixed objects in the video, measure the distance between the objects in the real world, and deduce your speed.

I don't have a dashcam as I wouldn't want to self incriminate. Too many times where I *might* be a little over the limit.

I do drive and ride fast, but also cautiously and defensively. I haven't had a crash, or had anyone hit me, in nearly 20 years.

I did think about getting a dashcam, but decided against, for the reasons above.

exact same for me but 12 years

Same here but for 41 yrs = have too many close calls on the motorway each week - so want something to back me up in the event of someone elses error

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

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.

No I don't, it's overtaking at that speed in those circumstances.
His positioning, performing that overtake in that place, at that speed, with those vehicles all were they were, was a seriously flawed decision. But the way he was riding up to it doesn't make it surprising that he did what he did. It wasn't one isolated bad decision or error of judgement. He was a collision like that waiting to happen.

The actions of the motorcyclist (positioning, speed & where he chose to pass when he did) would undermine the prosecutions ability to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver had failed to fulfil his obligations under Sec 3 RTA (whether he had in fact looked or not), because even if he had looked the rider's actions could have reasonably contributed to the driver not reasonably seeing him or anticipating he would have done what he did, it not being reasonable for him to do what he did, where he did, when he did & how he did.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th October 21:48

[lost in espace]

Downloaded the files off my wife's dashcam that get saved when you hit the button. Was annoyed to find her forcing her way in to a junction cutting up a van and the guy shouts at her quite a bit. She can be heard saying "its all on camera".

I got the camara as she has a fairly nasty commute, now worried she drives like a crazy lady when she is on her own.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

I haven't said I want to put all the blame on the biker, but that doesn't alter the fact that the rider's actions amount to dangerous driving in law (a catalogue of incidents falling far below what is expected) whilst the car driver's don't

Then the law's an ass.

Both of them made careless mistakes, which unfortunately resulted in someone's death.
But a few yards, or a few milliseconds either way and it might not have.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

I haven't said I want to put all the blame on the biker, but that doesn't alter the fact that the rider's actions amount to dangerous driving in law (a catalogue of incidents falling far below what is expected) whilst the car driver's don't

Then the law's an ass.

Both of them made careless mistakes, which unfortunately resulted in someone's death.
But a few yards, or a few milliseconds either way and it might not have.

The biker didn't make a careless mistake, he performed a course of conduct that amounted to dangerous riding. It was no isolated incident. The car driver may have been careless, but the rider's actions make it harder for the prosecution to prove that he was in fact careless.