Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Are drivers fitting dash-cams to catch naughty cyclists?

And will it do them any good if they are?

Cyclists were the first British road users to use action cams to record their encounters with other road users, and we’ve all seen terrifying footage of Russian road lunacy. Now it seems British drivers are picking up dash-cams in a bid to prove that everyone else on the road is a menace — and especially cyclists.

According to Paul Gallagher and Rachael Kitson in the Independent, sales of dash-board mounted cameras are booming as drivers seek to record evidence of altercations with cyclists and other road users.

Halfords saw a 150 percent increase in sales of dash-cams over Christmas, though it’s estimated that only 3 percent of drivers are using one. A spokesman for Electronics website Digi4u said: "The product is particularly popular among taxi drivers who use it to monitor their on-call drives and use the video as evidence in insurance claims in case of an accident."

And despite the Independent’s initial comment that drivers are using cams to monitor cyclists, it seems that other drivers and insurance are bigger concerns.

Halfords in-car technology manager Alec James said: "Following an incident people are often reluctant to admit guilt and risk losing their no-claims discount. In addition, the surge in fraudulent 'crash for cash' claims is causing genuine concern among innocent drivers. The range of recording devices we now offer means that we can provide drivers with the means to produce evidence."

The police are quite keen on the idea too. Paul Marshall, Suffolk's deputy chief constable, said: "Increasing use is being made by the public of digital cameras to record evidence of offences which can be used by the police to support prosecutions. This is welcomed by Association of Chief Police Officers as quite often the only evidence available is an eyewitness account which is disputed by the alleged offender."

Our tame freelance motoring journo, Jamie Fretwell can see why drivers might want to be using dash-cams though. He said: “Cyclists and motorists have to share Britain's roads, and perhaps drivers have seen an increasing number of cyclists armed with helmet cameras and decided to play them at their own game.

“The only cyclists who will complain about motorists filming them are those who are jumping red lights or breaking the rules of the road. Those who have nothing to hide needn't worry about being filmed.“

So can we expect lots of video evidence helping police nail bad drivers and erven bad cyclists? Drivers relying on dash-cam footage might be in for frustration and disappointment if the experiences of cyclists with helmet cam evidence are anything to go by.

At the end of last week, Chi Yong La was told by the Metropolitan Police that they planned to take no action against the moped rider who allegedly attempted to kick Chi off his bike on January 16, even though Chi had clear helmetcam footage of the incident. Police said a “lack of independent witnesses” meant there was no “realistic prospect of achieving a successful prosecution”.

The police have as yet taken no action against the passenger of a white Audi who appears to have pushed a rider off his bike in Farringdon two weeks ago. Helmetcam footage of the incident from a witness clearly shows the car’s registration, and the rider involved has made a complaint, but a police spokesman said no arrest has been made.

In 2010, the authorities declined to take action against a driver caught on camera threatening to kill cyclist Martin Porter. Martin is also a senior lawyer who blogs as the Cycling Silk, but it nevertheless took two formal complaints about the handling of the incident before a prosecution occurred. The driver, Scott Lomas, was fined £250 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge as well as costs of £300 after pleading guilty to the offence of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
hood | 10 years ago
0 likes

every car sold should have a black box to monitor acceleration, speeds, phone calls made in the car etc. it should also have a camera watching the road, and another watching the driver.

every bicycle sold should have a bell, and front and back light fitted, reflectors on the pedals (or spd pedals should be made of reflective metal/material). these are all highway code requirements and a bike should not be sold without them because it allows idiots on bikes (not REAL cyclists) free on the road to give us all a bad name and kill themselves.

Avatar
missfaversham | 10 years ago
0 likes

all you need then is a live stream and a z list compere, and you've practically got running man as a reality  3

Avatar
BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes

Hi Road.cc

Well done for exacerbating the tension between cyclists & drivers by continuing the Independent's sensationalism with your ridiculous headline.

Avatar
700c replied to BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes
BikeBud wrote:

Hi Road.cc
Well done for exacerbating the tension between cyclists & drivers by continuing the Independent's sensationalism with your ridiculous headline.

There is quite a lot of that on here - although this article probably isn't the worst example of this. But the readership seems to lap it up..

Alongside this, there is some good reporting of issues affecting cyclists, particularly highlighting the injustice and negative reporting of the mainstream media, and campaigns to promote cycle safety.

if you relied on this website alone for your news on cycling in the UK today, you'd be forgiven for thinking motorists and cyclists are at war though.. The bias in reporting is a little like reading the daily mail, just with the other view represented! (but sadly with less influence than the aforementioned rag)..

Road cc is frustrating and brilliant in equal measure!

Avatar
tommyketchup | 10 years ago
0 likes

The only time I think I would use a camera is when there is that nude bike ride in town  10

Avatar
hairyairey | 10 years ago
0 likes

oozaveared - I recall that some police cars were (and probably still are) fitted with two speedometers - a normal one and a more accurate one which moved a lot more slowly. They would follow a driver for 2/10ths of a mile to get an accurate reading.

They still count as independent evidence.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to hairyairey | 10 years ago
0 likes
hairyairey wrote:

oozaveared - I recall that some police cars were (and probably still are) fitted with two speedometers - a normal one and a more accurate one which moved a lot more slowly. They would follow a driver for 2/10ths of a mile to get an accurate reading.

They still count as independent evidence.

I don't think they even bother installing these any more. They are certified by the Home Office for use but the officer has to have maintained an even distance for at least 352 yards. It's a bit like morse code. Yes the military still learn it but it's way out of date. And the trouble is that it can be challenged on the distance covered and the fact that an unscrupulous officer could just keep accepelerating and closing the distance to get a higher reading.

I think the courts and a defence lawyer would absolutely go to town on evidence like this and actually bringing a case based on it would be embarassing. Nowdays police vehicles are predominantly fitted with ProViDa.
and use the Police Pilot system approved by ACPO. It doesn't require any effort to use. It monitors the police car speed and the speed of the target vehicle. It can be used stationary or fully mobile, and provides speed overlay and high quality video footage of traffic passing in both directions.

In this day and age turning up with a statement from an officer that swears blind he stayed at exactly the same distance for 350 yards would be laughed out of court. The technology to do the job to a much higher standard without the police being able to influence the results is readily available.

In fact several defences have been mounted on operator use (easier to make out that copper is incompetent that go to war with the Boffins at Petards) However in those cases the training record of the officers has been cited in evidence. To pass the training they have to demonstrate that they can consistently provide accurate reading to <0.5mph. I understand that no defence has tried this since because it is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot.

Avatar
Stumps replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:
hairyairey wrote:

oozaveared - I recall that some police cars were (and probably still are) fitted with two speedometers - a normal one and a more accurate one which moved a lot more slowly. They would follow a driver for 2/10ths of a mile to get an accurate reading.

They still count as independent evidence.

I don't think they even bother installing these any more. They are certified by the Home Office for use but the officer has to have maintained an even distance for at least 352 yards. It's a bit like morse code. Yes the military still learn it but it's way out of date. And the trouble is that it can be challenged on the distance covered and the fact that an unscrupulous officer could just keep accepelerating and closing the distance to get a higher reading.

I think the courts and a defence lawyer would absolutely go to town on evidence like this and actually bringing a case based on it would be embarassing. Nowdays police vehicles are predominantly fitted with ProViDa.
and use the Police Pilot system approved by ACPO. It doesn't require any effort to use. It monitors the police car speed and the speed of the target vehicle. It can be used stationary or fully mobile, and provides speed overlay and high quality video footage of traffic passing in both directions.

In this day and age turning up with a statement from an officer that swears blind he stayed at exactly the same distance for 350 yards would be laughed out of court. The technology to do the job to a much higher standard without the police being able to influence the results is readily available.

In fact several defences have been mounted on operator use (easier to make out that copper is incompetent that go to war with the Boffins at Petards) However in those cases the training record of the officers has been cited in evidence. To pass the training they have to demonstrate that they can consistently provide accurate reading to <0.5mph. I understand that no defence has tried this since because it is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot.

Since i joined the job in 1989 we have never had 2 speedo's. The panda's have always had one and the traffic cars had one with another speed system installed which accurately measured a drivers speed which was digital. That has now evolved to an even more accurate system. Also panda drivers are not allowed to do people for speeding, it must be a traffic car / arv fitted with the correct machines.

As for dash cams, its a brilliant idea.

Avatar
andyspaceman | 10 years ago
0 likes

All sounds fair enough. Hopefully it'll get a few of the idiot cyclists out there to tone it down a bit, and stop giving the rest of us a bad name.

Avatar
jimm | 10 years ago
0 likes

When riding through my city, Copenhagen, I use a sport cam primarily to shows friends and family the cycling infrastructure for my commute or on 'fun rides' with my recumbent or velomobile.

Occasionally when reviewing the footage, I catch things I would not have normally seen. I treat it like an extra pair of eyes, so that I can improve my future riding.

Avatar
Andrew Hagen | 10 years ago
0 likes

Designed specifically for cyclists the HD camera & tail-light combo will record what goes on behind cyclists to look out for their most vulnerable spot. Fly6 will be available through Kickstarter next week. For more info check out www.fly6.com where cyclists already posting crazy stuff using Fly6.

When motorists become aware they will be recorded, they will start behaving themselves because there will be clear HD footage of the incident.

Hopefully you don't need the camera and just use it as a tail-light but if something ever happens, it will be recorded!

Avatar
Initialised | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why aren't these statutory, GPS enabled and (relatively) tamper-proof like black boxes in aircraft yet?

Avatar
harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

Are Question Headlines Justified when you Know The Answer To The Question Is No?

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 10 years ago
0 likes

Not sure why they are bothering - just be like Clarkson and use your handheld mobile to photograph/video when you're driving.

Avatar
Sedgepeat | 10 years ago
0 likes

This is utter rubbish and reveals the two mindsets. Cyclists seem to have adopted head cams to video others transgressing.

Drivers have adopted them for protection and defence.

Two main events have caused this. 1) The crash for cash scam and 2) The most important, careless driving by fixed penalty. We are advising all drivers to fit them now. If it wasn't careless before, how does FP suddenly make it so? FPs had never ever been used nor were they intended for subjective issues. Careless driving on the subjective whim of a PC with the usual coercive offers of no points providing we accept the charge & hand over cash to some firm running dishonest courses?

So film everything and your recorded comments prior to and immediately after the event are very good evidence as is any conversations with police.

But never accept these tickets. Make the police prove it every time and make this type of FP an utter failure.
Where does the Indy get its ideas?

Avatar
ironmancole | 10 years ago
0 likes

Given the reluctance we've just read about for the CPS to prosecute the murderous attempts of the moped rider all caught on camera will there be a specialist department set up to deal with the hours of footage that will no doubt swamp them and can they be arsed to act anyway?

My own experiences have left me in little doubt that the roads are one of the last bastions of utter lawlessness in the UK with a wild west approach of every man for himself.

Cameras should be a permanent fixture in every car with tamper proof recording accessible in the event of 'an accident' or as I like to call them, a completely avoidable incident for want of common sense, decency and patience.

Have to laugh at cams being bought to monitor the cyclists, as ever the twigs are focused on and victimised whilst the great boughs come crashing down doing the real damage completely unchecked.

How will the CPS deal with the inevitable challenges to so called evidence anyway, the legal companies specialising in keeping the nutters out there on the road will present such an obstacle that the CPS will no doubt throw the case due to the likely drawn out cost stating it's 'not in the public interest' or similar.

Result = the roads stay filled with lethal people freshly reminded that they can do pretty much whatever they want.

Avatar
Gordy748 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Really, really poor example of journalism, Road.cc. The kernel of truth in your article lie in the third and fourth paragraphs. Insurance and liability for accidents is often challenged in court, where if one cannot provide supporting evidence, then you're often out of luck.

Besides, the chances of using on-dash cameras to prosecute cyclists has a fatal flaw; how can you identify one pair of black lycra-clad buttocks from another in a line up?

Avatar
Cyclist | 10 years ago
0 likes

Ref cam footage, a precedence has been set, any good solicitor will now get it thrown out.. And as we have no plates wear helmets and shades etc you prove it is '?' Whoever on grainy footage, Christ you can try and kick someone off a bike with a number plate on your back and they aren't interested so numpty cyclists have nothing to worry about at all. Annoyingly.

Q has to be asked though about the old bill that are wearing shoulder cams that are the same cams as most cyclists use. The police are giving people lots of ammo to throw back at them.... Silly silly plod.

Car cams they can fill their boots, because I will use it against them if they drive like twats.

Works both ways.

Avatar
MartyMcCann | 10 years ago
0 likes

Betteridge's law in action, Road.cc?

Avatar
Daclu Trelub | 10 years ago
0 likes

"Lack of independent witnesses"?
Odd that; otoh, a polis speedometer is taken as a witness when they want to bust you for footing it along the road. Strange are the ways of the Law.

Avatar
Gennysis | 10 years ago
0 likes

They'll have footage of a lot more law breaking motorists than law breaking cyclists.  41

Avatar
Argos74 | 10 years ago
0 likes

No problems with cameras in cars. I managed to get seriously fed up with serial cash-for-crash scam artists/solicitors, and their lousy attempts to phish for information. Drivers are getting fed up as well, and it's worth the trade off for the cost of the camera against protecting their no claims discount.

No problem with being filmed either, as long as I get royalties if it's used it as a instructional video for aware, defensive riding.

Make 'em compulsory? Now there's a thought.

"Hello hello hello. Driving licence, insurance documents and dashcam hard drive please."

Avatar
oldnslowly | 10 years ago
0 likes

More cameras are good. Thinly of the joy, you've just been wiped out by a car, you pick yourself up and hear the shout from behind " that was outrageous mate, I've got it on video....."

Avatar
ron611087 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Bring it on!

I use a camera, and there is one thing drivers will learn. They record their own behaviour as well as everyone elses, and if they are crap drivers they will incriminate themselves. Remember Richard Nixon?

For that reason I would love to see every motorist compelled to carry a camera.

Avatar
nod | 10 years ago
0 likes

It's the fucking Daily Mailism in people today. The "red light jumping is breaking the law!" moaners are the same jobsworths who won't serve you an egg mcmuffin at 11.05am but think making a short phone call while driving is okay.

Look at pedestrians - they shouldn't be crossing the streets away from crossings or when the man is red, but they do! So, where's the campaign against them?

As for cameras, I'd use a camera to protect myself against dangerous driving, not so I can report them to the teacher like we're back in primary school.

Avatar
levermonkey replied to nod | 10 years ago
0 likes

Pedestrians like cyclists are "By Right" users of the public highway (i.e. they do not require a licence). Why shouldn't a pedestrian cross where and when he likes? Provided he has carried out checks and does not endanger anyone by his actions, why not?

It doesn't matter in my opinion who is doing the filming. The more cameras the better. Maybe if the moped rider who kicked the front wheel of a cycle had been filmed by a second person maybe there would be a prosecution.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to nod | 10 years ago
0 likes
nod wrote:

Look at pedestrians - they shouldn't be crossing the streets away from crossings or when the man is red, but they do! So, where's the campaign against them?

Pedestrians are perfectly entitled to do either of those things. As long as they look before stepping out and use at least a minimal bit of sense. Perfectly legal, and I definitely wouldn't want a situation where people on foot had to 'know their place' and stick to marked crossings at green.

Avatar
twinklydave | 10 years ago
0 likes

It's a good thing surely?

The cameras will record any poor road use, irrespective of who is doing it...even if that person be the driver of the car with a camera in, thus promoting sensible driving, hurrah!  1

Avatar
ribena | 10 years ago
0 likes

These cameras mostly seem to be of use in civil claims.

Unfortunately, a lot of the aggression and bad driving doesn't result in a financial loss (close pases, verbal abuse, punching/kicking) so they aren't that useful unless the police prosecute on video evidence, which they don't appear to do.

Hence the youtube shaming...

Avatar
spatuluk | 10 years ago
0 likes

Well.. road.cc took the Independents bait, hook, line, and sinker!

Strange as it may seem, motorists have more problems with other motorists than they have with cyclists. The cams are to catch ALL naughty road users.

They're a good thing, believe it or not. If everyone knows they're being watched, they'll be less likely to drive like morons, which can only be a good thing for cyclists.

But, you know.. don't let that get in the way of sensationalism. I think I'll stop visiting this site now.

Pages

Latest Comments