Dash cam policing

[Mr-Goose]

It looks like police in Wales are rolling out a scheme that will allow the public's dash cam footage to be used to catch bad drivers. Personally I think this is a great idea as I'm fed up seeing so many idiots on our roads. I don't have a dash cam in my current car but in my old one I did on a number of occasions send footage to companies where I had seen people skipping red lights or using a mobile phone in their company vehicles. Hopefully it will be extended across the UK.

Motorists using dash cams to inform on dodgy drivers - BBC News

 

[markjay]

It makes sense, but at the same time we have to be careful that it does not give rise to a new breed of self-declared vigilantes who patrol the roads day and night with the sole puprose of catching someone change lanes without indicating... I would suggest that dashcam evidence should only be accepted in case of serious offense or actual dangerous driving.

 

[Steveml63]

It makes sense, but at the same time we have to be careful that it does not give rise to a new breed of self-declared vigilantes who patrol the roads day and night with the sole puprose of catching someone change lanes without indicating... I would suggest that dashcam evidence should only be accepted in case of serious offense or actual dangerous driving.

Hi,
Agreed - can easily see a situation where a dash cam vigilante chases an "offender" at speed to aquire video "evidence" and then either causing or being involved in an accident.
Cheers
Steve

 

[MancMike]

Isn't it just crowd sourced policing?

With fewer cops patrolling the roads than we'd like, maybe the knowledge that pretty much everyone is an unmarked cop might encourage better driving.

 

[brucemillar]

The Police intervention will fail.

Why?

There is a dedicated Youtube Chanel idiotdriversuk where people post up their dashcam footage of 'idiot drivers'. In nearly every case we see a mob gather to blame the poster for some 'unseen' action that caused the 'idiot' to react in way they did.

A recent clip (sent to the Police) featured a clearly identifiable Audi and it's driver and passenger, chopping in front of an HGV on a roundabout before the Audi driver brake tests the HGV then turns around in his seat to take pictures on his phone while shouting abuse at the HGV driver. The Police failed to act despite overwhelming camera evidence of multiple offenses being carried by the Audi Driver. That is just one of many where the Police show zero interest. http://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2...m-the-finger-and-take-a-picture-on-his-phone/

 

[st13phil]

Hmmm...

This sort of thing treads a line between "public-spirited assistance of the police" and Stasi-style informing. It undoubtedly has the capacity to attract the wrong sort of people who will engage in inappropriate behaviour, and also has the potential to waste a huge amount of police time watching videos in support of pointless complaints from the indignant.

On balance, I'm not sure I'm really comfortable with it.

 

[clk320x]

It makes sense, but at the same time we have to be careful that it does not give rise to a new breed of self-declared vigilantes who patrol the roads day and night with the sole puprose of catching someone change lanes without indicating... I would suggest that dashcam evidence should only be accepted in case of serious offense or actual dangerous driving.

There's a knob like that on a motorbike every morning at 7am down the M1. Tries to pull over cars... screaming.. unsurprisingly no one stops

 

[MancMike]

There's a knob like that on a motorbike every morning at 7am down the M1. Tries to pull over cars... screaming.. unsurprisingly no one stops

Just a little nudge should do it.

 

[clk320x]

Just a little nudge should do it.

He's got 3 or 4 go pros strapped around him lol

 

[automaniaman]

Eric Arthur Blair, springs to mind.

 

[AMGBlack]

Using footage like this, (Any video) that is sent by the public to the police can't be used in prosecution for one main reason. Authenticity.

The video itself must be guaranteed to have undergone strict handling procedures prior to it being submitted as evidence in court. Unless the chain of untampered video evidence can be proven (i.e. the original footage exists in the same state and untampered date stamps), then any good defence lawyer can question its authenticity and as such get video dismissed if that chain is broken.

The very fact such good editing software can render slightly imperfect footage almost distinguishable from a genuine copy, makes the task even harder.. hence the case law around strict handling.

This is nothing more than your local village speed watch team who informs the police, which in turn sends you out a scary letter.. but with no further action unless caught from the police themselves.

What it would do, is perhaps allow them to build up a database on people's driving behaviour which focus their resources into identified problem spots and individuals. (Big data).

Be interesting to see how that plays out..

Or of course its simply the police putting out the message, to make people think they could be now caught easier and as such hope it improves driving standards.

(coughs!)..

 

[PobodY]

Hi,
can easily see a situation where a dash cam vigilante chases an "offender" at speed to aquire video "evidence" and then either causing or being involved in an accident.

If you ever watch those YouTube channels (like IdotdriversUK for example) you will see that half the time the accident could have been avoided if the officious twit with the dashcam had (a) been driving slower (b) been at least a little courteous. - I foresee people implicating themselves whilst trying to capture footage of some wrongdoing.

There's a similar problem with people making threats whilst on the phone to the police to report a crime; they don't seem to understand that they've just been recorded committing an offence themselves.

 

[markjay]

He's got 3 or 4 go pros strapped around him lol

I suspect that he recent increase in Go-Pro camera usage has caused even more friction and road rage incidents, as the Go-Pro brigade feel 'protected' by their cameras and are more likely to engage with other road users.

E.g.:

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-18/jeremy-vine-road-rage-appeal-shanique-syrena-pearson/

I suspect that if Mr Vine did not have his helmet cam at the time, he would just moved to one side letting the car to pass and the entire incident would have been prevented.

 

[Mr-Goose]

AMGBlack makes a good point about the chain of evidence. I was thinking about it and one problem I see is with determining the correct date and time. That said the Welsh police seem to be happy with the trial so there must be something there. Found a bit more info here

https://www.north-wales.police.uk/advice-and-support/safer-roads/operation-snap

 

[markjay]

AMGBlack makes a good point about the chain of evidence. I was thinking about it and one problem I see is with determining the correct date and time. That said the Welsh police seem to be happy with the trial so there must be something there. Found a bit more info here

https://www.north-wales.police.uk/advice-and-support/safer-roads/operation-snap

In the case of Jeremy Vine, his helmet cam footage was used as evidence in court.

Police may rightly have their own reservations about prosecuting people simply based on footage obtained from the public, but I don't think that there's an overbearing legal reason that categorically prevents such footage from being used as evidence.

 

[lfckeeper]

AMGBlack makes a good point about the chain of evidence. I was thinking about it and one problem I see is with determining the correct date and time. That said the Welsh police seem to be happy with the trial so there must be something there. Found a bit more info here

https://www.north-wales.police.uk/advice-and-support/safer-roads/operation-snap

My understanding is the video evidence can be used but only in conjunction with a witness statement (the owner of the dashcam must be prepared to go to court and verify what they witnessed).

I could be talking rubbish but I think thats correct.

 

[Tuercas viejas]

Well they have their uses.
A lot of truckers here in the USA have them for defense.
Just like in the UK you get knobs like that Audi driver trying to cause a collision/or a serious (RTA) accident.

One of my customers who drives a Volvo rig as an O/O was between Las Vegas and Seattle on a dual carriageway, when some super aggressive antics with a woman Audi driver and a line of cars quickly occurred as the Audi collided with them in some mad cap maneuvers. It ended up in a huge collision with the HGV truck ploughing into the melee in front of him. Of course its everyone's fault but theirs & everyone blamed the trucker when the State trooper on highway patrol turns up get statements and hand out tickets.

He pulled out the recording stick and handed it to the officer who went and viewed the dash cam recording. The Audi driver was apparently arrested for dangerous driving.
Yes good stuff, much of it though for Youtube entertainment and folk like grown men out of control acting like petulant children.
Of course on this side you are likely to have someone pull out a firearm and and start pointing it it appropriately.
Like in those Montalbano solo telenovelas you guys get on your side.
Pee'd my pants laughing on this one! The Italian if you understand it, is as equally entertaining as the film itself .Could easily be the Denver metro area!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWvcCwkTSfs

Tuercas viejas.

 

[brucemillar]

My understanding is the video evidence can be used but only in conjunction with a witness statement (the owner of the dashcam must be prepared to go to court and verify what they witnessed).

I could be talking rubbish but I think thats correct.

This is correct:

The video has be of "evidence quality" including a time and date stamp. It must be accompanied by witness's & statements (as is normal). It is no different to CCTV being used in evidence today in the UK courts.

As I understood it, the Police are already drowning in the vast amount of dash cam footage that is sent to them. In the case I posted the Police eventually did take action, after a huge public outcry at the initial lack of action, embarrassed them into doing so.

 

[markjay]

...The video has be of "evidence quality" including a time and date stamp. It must be accompanied by witness's & statements (as is normal). It is no different to CCTV being used in evidence today in the UK courts...

But CCTV is often used without actual witnesses...? e.g. footage from security cameras in businesses and public places. These are not watched in real time, instead the police goes through hours of old footage to look for the evidence. No?

 

[Steveml63]

But CCTV is often used without actual witnesses...? e.g. footage from security cameras in businesses and public places. These are not watched in real time, instead the police goes through hours of old footage to look for the evidence. No?

Hi,
Yes I believe CCTV is often used to look for suspects.
If somebody is recognised from the CCTV and then arrested and interviewed, the police are looking for a confession from the suspect, at the interview stage.
Once they have a confession, then a charge would follow.
Without the crucial confession, then it's harder to charge and convict.
That's why an admission of guilt at the roadside (following a police stop) makes it much easier for the police to charge you with an offence.
Cheers
Steve