Dash cam policing

[brucemillar]

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?

Mark.

Yes DashCam footage can be used in court provided it meets the criteria for evidence quality. ie. The footage clearly shows evidence that is pertinent to the case. So if the accused simply it's not me in that car? Or, that's not my car etc, etc. and the court agree that the footage is not clear enough to support a prosecution (The Police should have checked this) then the court will reject the footage.

In the case I posted. All criteria for evidence were met. You could clearly id the car, driver and registration plate and surrounding, supporting data including signage etc. The same is true of CCTV. A blurry image of a human looking shape is never going to bring a conviction on it's own. However. It could be used in tandem with witness statements to support a trial.

So if witness X claims: He was wearing a bright red tartan shirt? And the video shows a person wearing a bright red tartan shirt at the time, place and date, then it is possible that it would be allowed.

 

[Cubase]

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

That's one of the problems. Some idiots with cameras go looking for any excuse to 'shame' another driver. Where in many cases a bit of defensive driving/riding would have avoided any problem in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

This will soon be dropped when the police force realise how much time will be taken up with watching film which is too blurry, an obvious error/mishap/lost driver, grudge footage, forced by the film maker and footage where no crime has been committed.

They could always prosecute the majority of wannabee Spielberg's for wasting police time.

 

[PobodY]

Anyone watch any of the Russian footage? - I notice that they don't stop after witnessing an accident; some poor woman gets cleaned-up by a car that doesn't stop for a pedestrian crossing, and everyone else just drives around her.

 

[tron]

There is no enemy of freedom more dangerous than somebody who thinks he is making the world a better place.

 

[TheFoX]

I actually forget that I have a Dash Cam installed in my car, so drive as if I don't have one. Doesn't mean I don't get cut up on a round-a-bout from time to time, or have to stop because an idiot from a side street exerts their right to pull out in front of me.

I have the Dash Cam installed because if I am involved in an altercation or accident, I have some sort of record to show Police. This did happen once, not so long back, when a van took my door mirror off and I confronted the driver and his mate who insisted that I had caused the accident. My Dash Cam proved otherwise and they were unable to push the issue and make a claim against me.

On the subject of Dash Cam footage being used to prosecute dangerous drivers, forget it. On the way to Kings Lynn on the A17, a Porche exceeding the speed limit by a large margin overtook us and the car in front of us forcing the oncoming LGV to swerve to avoid a collision, yet when I contacted Police to report this very bad driving, they didn't want to know.

In fact, they sent me out a form for me to fill in, and that form requires some very specific information. Did you know that if you witness dangerous driving that you MUST provide the details of a third party witness that is NOT a friend or family to corroborate your story. This means that if a violent or dangerous action is performed by another driver, you must slam your brakes on, jump out of your car and grab a nearby pedestrian or another motorist and ask them if they are prepared to vouch for you. How stupid is that?

 

[Petrol Pete]

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?

Years ago we had a car stolen from the works car park but the CCTV images were so poor the police said they were of no use.

Had the 3 guys on the video been recorded murdering someone I have no doubt the police would have taken the footage and tried to get in enhanced to use as evidence.

As it was it was not worth the effort for the theft of a 10 year old car.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Anyone watch any of the Russian footage? - I notice that they don't stop after witnessing an accident; some poor woman gets cleaned-up by a car that doesn't stop for a pedestrian crossing, and everyone else just drives around her.

Not sure how true but I heard the reason we see so much dashcam stuff from Russia is because you must have a dashcam to get insured.

Anyone else heard this ?

 

[st13phil]

Did you know that if you witness dangerous driving that you MUST provide the details of a third party witness that is NOT a friend or family to corroborate your story... ...How stupid is that?

While I appreciate your point, it's actually not stupid if you think about it.

To obtain a conviction for a motoring offence requires corroborative evidence from two independent witnesses (there are certain exceptions regarding Police Officers). This is to safeguard you, me, and everyone else from malicious allegations.

There are enough problems with Police Officers giving out Fixed Penalty Notices for "offences" only they have witnessed (and yes, Police Officers are sometimes mistaken and yes, a small percentage will lie), let alone having every Joe Bloggs making uncorroborated allegations that could result in convictions.