# Police to prosecute using dashcam evidence



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Looks like we'll have to be even more careful up here in N Wales. Not only do we have speed cameras and vans all over the place. We also have vans and small tripod mounted cameras photographing mobile phone use and eating at the wheel. Now we're going to have Joe public sending in videos from their dashcam!!!!!

http://www.deeside.com/drivers-set-prosecute-reckelss-drivers-using-sent-dashcam-evidence-opsnap/


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

There has already been quite a lot of examples with dashcams used to charge drivers. 

It's one thing for the police to pick up on high profile cases, it'll be another if they openly invite videos to be sent in. They'll be inundated with tons of nothing incidents.


----------



## HEADPHONES (Jan 1, 2008)

Totally agree that the police will be inundated. 
Those lycra wrapped car hating helmet cam wearing vigilante cyclists are going to love this.


----------



## Sanke (Aug 21, 2014)

That'll be pretty interesting as when GDPR comes in to full effect, your license plate will be part covered under Data Protection, effectively meaning all the dashcam road warriors ought to be asking your permission to electronically store information which is personally identifiable to the owner. 

The police etc get round this, but personal individuals can't. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Sanke said:


> That'll be pretty interesting as when GDPR comes in to full effect, your license plate will be part covered under Data Protection, effectively meaning all the dashcam road warriors ought to be asking your permission to electronically store information which is personally identifiable to the owner.
> 
> The police etc get round this, but personal individuals can't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Would that only be an issue if they stick something on YouTube etc? Presuming sending it to police would be ok?


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

Sanke said:


> That'll be pretty interesting as when GDPR comes in to full effect, your license plate will be part covered under Data Protection, effectively meaning all the dashcam road warriors ought to be asking your permission to electronically store information which is personally identifiable to the owner.
> 
> The police etc get round this, but personal individuals can't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


So this means that dash cams will be outlawed or does it mean they will be allowed but cant be used as evidence?

Interesting point though.

I did buy a dashcam but still havent fitted it to the 208...might actually just fit it to the Jeep and use it for recording green lane'ing instead.

I did think about it and I do sometimes (on the rare occasion) like to use the 208 GTI in a "spirited" manner and if i was to get pulled up it would be evidence of said driving


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Slightly off topic but the Police can and do confiscate sat navs in the event of an accident or collision.

If the sat nav has recorded something that maybe worth a prosecution (maybe you were being a bit entuusiastic with your speed ) they can investigate.

Conversly if it shows you are a law abiding road user that has been "caught up" in an accident it's very useful evidence against the other party.

This hapened to me when following a motorcyclist who came off on a bad bend. My "discussions" backed up by my sat nav showed the motorcyclist was only doing about 10-15 mph and was caught out by a slippery "addition" to the road surface presumably dropped by another road user. Police were great, all soted out quickly, efficiently and with common sense.

I guess dash cams will be the same but even better because of video not just speed/location.

We've all seen the antics of other road users and 2 girls at our son's school were killed by a driver on a mobile so you can probably see where I'm comng from.

Andy.

PS They're great on track days


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

HEADPHONES said:


> Totally agree that the police will be inundated.
> Those lycra wrapped car hating helmet cam wearing vigilante cyclists are going to love this.


And I still say cyclists using the roads should be insured at the very least and arguably even be subject to _some_ form of road fund license (although that's a whole other topic for another thread). They take up near as makes no difference space on the road as a motorbike does and can be involved in incidents in much the same way. Motorbikes can't ride on the roads for nothing, so why should pedal cyclists? And occasionally I ride on the roads - and plan to more in the future - so I include myself in this.

Returning to the topic in question: my main concern with this is the integrity of the submitted footage. In this day and age of very clever home editing software, how will the police determine what is true, honest footage and what's been 'messed about with' for any number of reasons?


----------



## ffrs1444 (Jun 7, 2008)

AndyN01 said:


> Slightly off topic but the Police can and do confiscate sat navs in the event of an accident or collision.
> 
> If the sat nav has recorded something that maybe worth a prosecution (maybe you were being a bit entuusiastic with your speed ) they can investigate.
> 
> ...


Satnav speed is not enough for cps to charge and dosnt stand in court its not calibrated. My old work satnav says i was doing 250mph for one reason


----------



## Sanke (Aug 21, 2014)

Re the you tube quote, presently there isn't enough info to Id the driver, but gdpr will slim the identification points down to one or two.... So if footage has been used of your car without your permission you do have the right to request it removed. 

And yes the police can confiscate items in accidents etc, but for people to send random clips in.... I'd first ask the person who recorded it if they had my permission, possibly a useful bit of EU regulation. 



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## CoOkIeMoNsTeR (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm just glad I don't work in Deeside anymore  I keep thinking about a dashcam but I go off the idea kind of for the reasons Nick mentions above, not that I drive my glacially slow diesel 206sw workhorse around on its readline but I'd feel too watched, too intruded on. I was asked by the insurance company if I had one in the Porsche on renewal, I said no, why? Might stop someone nicking it apparently... It's 35 years old, you can start it with a spoon, just open it up and turn the camera off!

There was talk of them being put in the work cars, now that is more of an issue! The insults about the terrible cars they give me on my journeys to Cardiff do not need to be on film, I'd feel as though I'd have to drive the whole way there in silence. You can imagine insurers trying to get out of paying because I had the radio on volume 12, too loud so I was distracted hence I crashed. What a world it would be


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

This will all turn into a whole can of worms.

And the winners will be.......

The lawyers :lol:


----------



## DLGWRX02 (Apr 6, 2010)

AndyN01 said:


> This will all turn into a whole can of worms.
> 
> And the winners will be.......
> 
> The lawyers :lol:


New tv add

" have you been unfairly wronged by a dash cam?, call us now"......


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

I personally think it's just another easy money making scheme by the police. Really easy to send a fine in the post with points or threat of points saying they have footage of you eating, cutting someone up. Majority of people will wet themselves and pay the fine. A few will fight it and the rest will ignore it until it gets dropped or goes to court. 

On the flip side I might get a dashcam, they'd have to employ more to sort out all the videos of middle lane hoggers I could send them daily!!


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

This is a load of tosh designed to scare people into driving better.

I handed footage of someone hitting my car and they did nowt!

Without clear evidence of the driver and the cars reg with irrefutable date and time and usually a another witness they'll do nothing as there's not enough evidence.


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

ardandy said:


> This is a load of tosh designed to scare people into driving better.
> 
> I handed footage of someone hitting my car and they did nowt!
> 
> Without clear evidence of the driver and the cars reg with irrefutable date and time and usually a another witness they'll do nothing as there's not enough evidence.


UNLESS it suits them.............

Going back a lot of years our old Neighbour caught some scrotes breaking into his garage on his CCTV system (going back to timelaps VCR days)

anyhow police turned up and told him as his camera was filming into the 10-foot he was breaking the law

Fast forward a month later Knock on his door..... "hello kind upstanding citizen can we look at your CCTV footage from last night pretty please you thoroughly nice bloke as someone turned the local off-licence over and the cash till is dumped in the 10 foot opposite your garage......"


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

andy monty said:


> UNLESS it suits them.............
> 
> Going back a lot of years our old Neighbour caught some scrotes breaking into his garage on his CCTV system (going back to timelaps VCR days)
> 
> ...


Ha!

I can only imagine the scrambling through hours of footage that followed that meeting...!

Presumably he replied "what camera"?


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

I am having my dash cams fitted tomorrow, it will give me piece of mind and in the event of an accident the cameras will prove vital, especially if third party is at fault, Andy our ECO warrior's situation proves just that.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Don't forget my new car due to pi5sy service too!


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

george orwell 1984 or cold war stasi germany.

spying on each other - textbook divide and conquer so we dont see the real problems of modern day policing.

if it wasnt for the oil companys loving us wasting fuel in big cars they'd limit all new cars to 70 and use sat nav to monitor our speed.

love a good conspiracy theory.

they'll be telling us a plane hit the pentagon next :lol:


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Not quite on topic but interesting to see the photos from the in cab camera of the lorry driver who ploughed into stationary traffic, killing several people.

Just been sentenced to 10 years.

Apparently tried to claim it was a brake failure until the camera footage showed he was messing with his mobile.

Food for thought?

Andy.


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

AndyN01 said:


> Not quite on topic but interesting to see the photos from the in cab camera of the lorry driver who ploughed into stationary traffic, killing several people.
> 
> Just been sentenced to 10 years.
> 
> ...


IMO 10 years is a joke, should have been ALOT more !!! 

James

.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

There has been 3 lorry drivers up in court in the last 2 weeks in the news. They have released the video footage to two of them.

Apparently nobody was seriously hurt here. Which is pretty amazing and lucky for the driver.






This guy was badly hurt and is having surgery to recover.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...for-ploughing-into-car---leaving-motorist-wi/

I can't make up my mind about the jail sentence. 10 years is a long long time. It doesn't matter how long someone spends in jail, it'll never bring the deceased back.

People get less than that for brutally bad attacks and sometimes deaths.

The two other lorry drivers only got short sentences as nobody died. The difference between the 3 instances is purely luck. Two were lucky they didn't kill anyone, but the other guy wasn't.

They all did commit the same offence of using the phone and never set out to harm anyone. They should be responsible for their actions though.

Mobile phone use is getting worse. Years ago it was the phone at the ear calling people. Now it's the phone in the hand sending messages and reading the internet which means eyes are off the road completely.

People still think it'll never be them doing what we've seen 3 times this week in court.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

The amount of people using their phone and driving is terrifying. I bite my tongue when I see people doing it, but do stare at them in the hope they will stop.

So ridiculous how addicted people are to the internet that they can't even drive for a period of time without planting their face to it. 

To be honest I'm not so sure hands free calling is without its risk either. I find it very different to talking to a passenger who is in the car and research is starting to show the same. 

Just ban mobile phone use in cars altogether. Bit like drinking and driving. Why provide a limit where people start making incorrect judgements on what they think is safe or not? Ban it completely and there is no grey area....

If you think you will drink at all don't drive. If you think you need to use your phone pull over. Simple...

/rant


----------



## armufti (Oct 11, 2016)

From my own personal experience, I was able to get a driving ban plus jail time for a road rage/assault incident which I caught on my dashcam last year.
I would never drive without one now.

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk


----------



## saabfan (Sep 19, 2016)

VIPER said:


> And I still say cyclists using the roads should be insured at the very least and arguably even be subject to _some_ form of road fund license (although that's a whole other topic for another thread). They take up near as makes no difference space on the road as a motorbike does and can be involved in incidents in much the same way. Motorbikes can't ride on the roads for nothing, so why should pedal cyclists? And occasionally I ride on the roads - and plan to more in the future - so I include myself in this.


I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea and I have specific cyclist cover but most home insurance policies will cover you and your family for 3rd party liability whilst cycling. I double checked with my insurer.

I don't know why people still bang on about road fund licence/road tax. It doesn't exist. It's a vehicle tax based on emissions. Bikes produce zero emissions so pay zero tax just like some cars. Roads are paid for by all taxes. Whether that be VAT you pay on something you bought or income tax you pay on your wages. All tax payers pay for the roads.

With regards to the GDPR, from what I can see, it will only apply to organisations that are currently seen as Data Processors under current Data Protection Act and not individuals.

I did see that the West Midlands police are using private camera footage to prosecute individuals too.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

First clip on this video. Who would you prosecute?






Reading the comments the Audi driver is getting 99% of the blame.

People appear to miss the fact they two of them are goading each other. There's also a middle section of the video cut out. I'm always suspicious when this happens as it often holds key footage.

It's a really stupid move by the Audi to pass the dashcam in the second part of the video. The dashcam driver was blocking his progress to wind him up. However watch the actual crash. The dashcam car accelerated to block the Audi and then turned into the Audi.

Then he posts to the internet to show how bad the Audi driver is and most people see the same thing. How can people be presented with video footage and still not see what's happening in front of their eyes?


----------



## Mikesphotaes (Jul 24, 2016)

I blame Vettel !


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

Kerr said:


> First clip on this video. Who would you prosecute?
> 
> 
> > That's a 50:50 in my opinion. At the outset the cam car was travelling at a reasonable speed and was passing the trucks merging onto the motorway. In the latter part the cam car was deliberately sitting at the same speed as the lorry, possibly to annoy the Audi driver. The camera car definitely moves across into the filter lane in an attempt to block the Audi from passing. The Audi shouldn't have been trying to pass there anyway.
> ...


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

How long do you think it will be before manufacturers start fitting front and rear dashcams / and or "black box" data recorders as standard in cars ?

Its currently plenty do-able in terms of both tech and cost. I would guess its only public reaction stopping them. 

My guess is that insurance companies will lever this in, by offering "discounts" for cars with activated monitoring systems, and Govt legislation will follow suit.


----------



## Fentum (May 1, 2017)

Kerr said:


> First clip on this video. Who would you prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. Both of them should be taken off the road. Other people could have been hurt. Throbbers, the pair of them.

Peter


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

GleemSpray said:


> How long do you think it will be before manufacturers start fitting front and rear dashcams / and or "black box" data recorders as standard in cars ?
> 
> Its currently plenty do-able in terms of both tech and cost. I would guess its only public reaction stopping them.
> 
> My guess is that insurance companies will lever this in, by offering "discounts" for cars with activated monitoring systems, and Govt legislation will follow suit.


I reckon within 5-6 years and rightly so. But only if the footage is only used in the event of an accident. As what if the police pull you for a routine stop, download the footage and see that 30minutes ago you were doing 36 in a 30 and maybe popped through an amber light. That's a big thing to consider Imo.

James.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

The guy with the dash cam is **** and deserved everything he got. The guy in the Audi let his anger get the better of him and deserves everything he got. 

My guess is Mr Dashcam saw Audi behind about to pass. Pulled out way earlier than he needed to forcing Audi to slam on anchors. Mr Dashcam then sat in right hand lane overtaking nothing and Audi passed on the left. He should have just gone on his merry way from there. When the crash happened Mr Dashcam caused the accident. He knew where the Audi was and floored it knowing Audi had nowhere to go and that an accident was only outcome. 

As for GDPR this doesn’t apply to individuals. GDPR also doesn’t apply to people identifiable in photos or video taken in public. It would be impractical for news broadcasters to have permission from every person recognisable in footage, for example, yet this is personally identifiable information on private individuals held by private companies. Numberplates are even less of an issue as that isn’t necessarily personally identifiable information. It’s a piece of plastic with numbers and letters on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Have to say having watched about half the YouTube video I got bored and stopped. Yes there was bad driving however it appears as if having a dashcam gives you the right to be a complete **** 

Everyone on the roads needs to have more patience and understanding. unfortunately people make mistakes however it doesn't give the right to aggravate the situation by constantly sounding their horn, speeding up to drive on their tail or overtaking and either gesticulating or yet again sounding their [email protected]!

As I say most of the people with the dashcam on the clips as far as I am concerned are as bad as those with poor driving skills


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Kerr said:


> First clip on this video. Who would you prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both of them. Behaving stupidly. Undertaking is one thing (although in that example it was clearly ill-advised) but deliberately goading other drivers, trolling in the fast lane, and then doing it back? AND overtaking in a filtering lane for a junction?

It's a miracle no one was killed.

I don't like dashcams because everyone is a hero or hardnut as soon as they have a camera fitted. UK road use is an imperfect world, people make mistakes or errors, that is human nature, half of us can't remember all the details of the highway code any more. Put a camera on the dash though and suddenly everyone is a vigilante road traffic officer and expert on traffic laws.


----------



## Harry_p (Mar 18, 2015)

macca666 said:


> Have to say having watched about half the YouTube video I got bored and stopped. Yes there was bad driving however it appears as if having a dashcam gives you the right to be a complete ****


This really. I've seen a lot of dashcam vids and in a huge proportion of cases it seems that having a camera gives people free reign to have an accident they could easily have avoided because they have their camera backup to prove they're in the right.

It seems that proving someone is an idiot is more important than looking out for and anticipating other people's actions and completely avoiding a near miss or some other sort of confrontation.

Yes, sometimes the other driver has made a mistake, they probably know about it too. I'd be amazed if there's any drive on the road that hasn't ever made a mistake of some kind!

I'm sure there are lots of cases where dashcam evidence has been helpful in proving blame after a disputed incident, and sometimes capture some truest frightening events, but like cycle cams, people do seem to use it as an excuse to get on their high horse.

Would be interesting to see them becoming more integrated and able to show throttle and brake pedal inputs to make it easier to see if the camera car took any steps to avoid an incident.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

I'm agreeing with a lot of the comments about people with dashcams. The amount of ****e driving I see by someone with a dashcam is unreal. When someone seems to be deliberately being a ****, more often than not there's a dashcam on their screen. Obviously they're trying to create a situation where they'll get some decent footage.

I've had a dashcam in a drawer for about 2-3 years but never fitted it because I don't want to become one of those dashcam pricks.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I've got the easiest solution........Swap their horn with the brake pedal. They all seem to get on the horn early, but the brakes appear to be very optional. 

I think many see the attention people get on YouTube and want a bit of that. We keep hearing how much money some people make from YouTube. 

Newspapers now openly advertise they pay for dashcam footage. It just gives even more encouragement. 

Someone is going to get it very wrong. The video I posted above could have ended up much worse. With the way the camera car tagged the rear of the Audi he could have easily sent him into a spin into the path of the lorry.


----------



## 50spence (Sep 22, 2015)

In that video he just stayed out there to long. If I see someone approaching me at speed just move over and let them go. Not that happens due to 500bhp that I have lol! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

OK, I'll put my cards on the table......I've dash cams front and rear.

Completely accept that some people with them in behave like complete idiots. 

Maybe that's down to the current social thing that "media" is the be all and end all and you can get famous and rich with no skills whatsoever. And being rich is obviously the absolute pinnacle of the best you can possibly be as a human being isn't it - NOT. :devil:

Think of all the "reality" shows where, IMHO, it appears that people with little claim to be a useful member of society become celebrities pretty much overnight. Pathetic.

So, in that climate, where's the surprise that people go out to deliberately "manufacture" footage to get famous and hopefully rich.

I have no intention whatsoever of putting any footage onto YouTube or similar. I simply don't get the media thing.

The cameras are simply there a to provide evidence of what happened if needed.

I guess I'm in the minority.

And yes, I'm in the camp that the driving test standard is far too low, we should have regular retests, tailgating, aggressive driving, using mobiles etc. should have much harsher penalties - how about immediate impounding followed by crushing the car and yes the road camera network should be used to identify offenders and "bring them in" straight away but that would require actual Police Officers? 

As some of you may have read in other threads a lorry driver on his phone killed two girls from my son's school when he ploughed into the back of their car on a main dual carriageway so you can probably see where I'm coming from. By the way, he wasn't speeding.

Sorry if this has turned into a rant.

Andy.


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

AndyN01 said:


> OK, I'll put my cards on the table......I've dash cams front and rear.
> 
> Completely accept that some people with them in behave like complete idiots.
> 
> ...


I don't think it was a rant, Andy, and I agree with every word. We have front facing cameras on both our cars, on mine it's a small screen sited behind the mirror, so I can't see it, on Mrs B's the screen is taped over, again so it can't be seen.

Apart from checking occasionally that they are in fact recording, they are never given a thought.

I deliberately chose models with no GPS facility, so they don't record speed.......


----------



## John74 (Mar 12, 2007)

I have a dashcam fitted just in case the unexpected happens and it comes down to my word against someone else.

This could have ended far worse and if it did and no witnesses stopped how would I proved what happened ?






Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

[I deliberately chose models with no GPS facility, so they don't record speed.......[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, so did I. :thumb:

Thanks.

Andy


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

from what i understand the 'send ur clips in' is manly about clear breaches of road rules that cant be misinterpreted.

such as over taking on solid whites, dangerous driving like over taking on a corner etc

they cant be used for 'fast' over taking as the speed isnt collaborated, inconsiderate driving as lets face it the old bill are to busy!

i must admit its made me more aware of my actions, when frustrated behind a sunday driver i do think have they got a cam?


----------



## Nick-ST (Mar 4, 2013)

VIPER said:


> And I still say cyclists using the roads should be insured at the very least and arguably even be subject to _some_ form of road fund license (although that's a whole other topic for another thread). They take up near as makes no difference space on the road as a motorbike does and can be involved in incidents in much the same way. Motorbikes can't ride on the roads for nothing, so why should pedal cyclists? And occasionally I ride on the roads - and plan to more in the future - so I include myself in this.
> 
> Returning to the topic in question: my main concern with this is the integrity of the submitted footage. In this day and age of very clever home editing software, how will the police determine what is true, honest footage and what's been 'messed about with' for any number of reasons?


Because then all cyclists would go back onto the pavement which is exactly what they have been trying to stop for umpteen years now. It won't happen for the simple fact that all our forces are stretched at best already, so then creating another headache to try and police would be very unwelcome amongst the police. How do you even purpose something like this could be put into force? Numberplates and MOT's for all bikes now?


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Cam or not, your insurance will be knocked if you are involved in a claim, whether it was your fault or not.


----------

