Helmet camera evidence from cyclists and motorcyclists has helped prosecute 600 drivers for road offences in just three months on the West Midlands Police force beat – and they’re expecting to clock up 3,000 camera evidence submissions by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, one cyclist has reported 325 mobile phone offences in a year on his daily commute, including catching two drivers twice, resulting in disqualifications in both cases. The man, who police say wants to remain anonymous, has been shortlisted for an active citizen award for helping to bring bad driving to police attention.
West Midlands Police’s third-party reporting website was launched last year for members of the public to submit video evidence of driver offences online. Officers say it has helped improve driver behaviour by creating a “constant threat of prosecution” – at a low cost.
West Midlands Police officers, Mark Hodson and Steve Hudson, came up with operation close pass in 2016, using a plain clothed officer on a bike to catch close passing drivers. Third party camera reporting came later – and has become popular among vulnerable road users. Hodson said: “We had 600 prosecutions January to March, and we’re expecting 3,000 [submissions] in 2019. We get more in the summer because you get more cyclists and more motorcyclists, and they have more cameras than drivers.”
“It’s absolutely brilliant for us. Considering none of those [prosecutions] involved a police officer and they are all community driven. From our point of view, it’s cost-effective.”
Hodson says one cyclist, who wants to remain anonymous, reported 325 drivers for mobile phone offences in a year – and the majority have resulted in prosecution, thanks to the quality of the evidence he submits. The man has been shortlisted for an active citizen award.
“He has caught two drivers on the same journey twice in the same fashion, they got six points each time – they have both been disqualified.”
“He has been to more crown court appeals than most police officers,” said Hodson. “He’s a family man, who rides the same way each day, there and back. He wants to make it safer for the community on the roads.”
If the video evidence is good enough, and submitted in time, a driver caught using a mobile phone at the wheel faces a minimum of six points and a £200 fine. If the registered vehicle owner doesn’t respond to police letters the six points and fine apply for failure to disclose driver details. If they deny the charges, and end up in court, it could cost them more than £1000, plus the points.
It’s effective, says Hodson. “Drivers give [cyclists and motorcyclists] a massive amount of room now, not because they have more respect, it’s because there is a credible threat of prosecution, and that’s what changes behaviour.”
He says citizen evidence has greater impact than police evidence, for a number of reasons.
“In terms of convincing the offending public on changing their behaviour, no-one wants to be labelled as part of an offending group. When members of the community start reporting you, the ‘hard-pressed motorist’ narrative goes straight out the window.”
Then there’s the optics in court. “Magistrates see a cyclist as a victim because they are standing there saying ‘all I’m trying to do is get home to my family’.
“We get higher sentencing,” he says. “Magistrates respond better if it is a normal person doing a normal journey on a normal day, than a police officer presenting evidence. Most are utility cyclists, normal cyclists, they are standing in a box saying ‘I do this journey every day and I feel threatened by this’.”
“Third party reporting is now an integral part of our road safety strategy,” said Hodson.
Although many police forces now process third party camera evidence, a recent report by the University of Leicester found a high degree of variation researchers described as a ‘postcode lottery of justice’.
The report, titled Promoting Safety for Vulnerable Road Users: Assessing the Investigation and Enforcement of Endangerment Offences, looked at enforcement of dangerous and careless driving offences and using a mobile phone while driving.
They found of 1010 reports from camera evidence submitted to West Midlands Police, almost a third of which related to mobile phone offences, 25 per cent were cancelled (no further action taken, or NFA) because of insufficient footage quality, or footage that was received too late. By contrast, of 1583 complaints filed to Surrey police’s web portal, 1283 were NFA. Of 434 submissions to Dyfed Powys in Wales, 192 were NFA, while in Gwent, 122 of 194 submissions were NFA.
This article was updated on 13 June 2019 to clarify West Midlands Police expect 3000 submissions in 2019. It previously said 3000 prosecutions





















62 thoughts on “West Midlands: helmet cam cyclist shops 325 drivers in a year”
Excellent work by the WMP,
Excellent work by the WMP, magistrates and the camera using public. 325 in a year is impressive for just one person.
What we need now is some funding for the police so they can all have plain clothes cyclists catching crims.
“Hodson says one cyclist, who
“Hodson says one cyclist, who wants to remain anonymous, reported 325 drivers for mobile phone offences in a year – and the majority have resulted in prosecution, thanks to the quality of the evidence he submits.”
followed by:
“The man has been shortlisted for an active citizen award.”
Bang goes his anonymity, then!
I’ve got 2 to submit from yesterday to TVP – so far, all but 1 have resulted in NFA, the other resulted in a visit from the police and then NFA!
LastBoyScout wrote:
Surprise. It seems the difference in NFA comes down to whether the police force gives a damn about cyclists.
How can we hold each police force to account and get them to adhere to some sort of national standards?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Raise a complaint and then pursue it as far as you can (writing to your MP can be effective). Even if it isn’t successful, it’ll show on their KSIs and eventually someone high up will want to reduce the high number of complaints.
How about a piece from road
How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that’s admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful ‘workflow’ tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.
Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.
flobble wrote:
That’s a great idea. I don’t commute these days as I work all over but I do cycle regularly and a couple of incidents recently have genuinely made me fear I was going to be knocked off my bike. I would have loved to submit good quality evidence.
I’ve looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering. Likewise I don’t want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet. Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don’t look too obvious on the bike?
barongreenback wrote:
I use a Roadhawk Ride R+ for the front. It was a bit expensive, but I got it on the drip so a tenner a month wasn’t missed.
Mounting on the drop handlebar makes it subtle enough. There are other ‘bullet type’ cameras which can be similarly mounted.
For the rear, I use a cheap Chinese camera/light which isn’t noticeable as a camera.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I use a Roadhawk Ride R+ for the front. It was a bit expensive, but I got it on the drip so a tenner a month wasn’t missed.
Mounting on the drop handlebar makes it subtle enough. There are other ‘bullet type’ cameras which can be similarly mounted.
For the rear, I use a cheap Chinese camera/light which isn’t noticeable as a camera.
[/quote]
I also use these cameras front and rear (although mine are the identical Dogcam R+).
I use the helmet mounts for the Exposure Joystick lights which are the same dia as the cameras. Very neat.
barongreenback wrote:
I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick – otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren’t driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it ‘cos they can’t be bothered to investigate/prove who was. For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one. Or perhaps one needs both.
Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out. Come on road.cc – get writing something new!
ReadingTim wrote:
This isn’t the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).
red_nick wrote:
Exactly theres no need for a camera to identify the driver necessarily, I’ve submitted footage where you could only see the back of the car as they cut me up through a pinch point which resulted in a letter sent to the driver,which was probably all I could expect from it.
But 325 submissions in year is impressive in so far as the commitment to follow them all through,even if it’s easy to upload the videos,theres still the whole witness report form to fill in,review of footage,identify the vehicle involved,it can be a draining process to keep having to do it repeatedly,when all you want to do is ride a bike in some sense of safety
Awavey wrote:
This isn’t the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).
— red_nick Exactly theres no need for a camera to identify the driver necessarily, I’ve submitted footage where you could only see the back of the car as they cut me up through a pinch point which resulted in a letter sent to the driver,which was probably all I could expect from it. But 325 submissions in year is impressive in so far as the commitment to follow them all through,even if it’s easy to upload the videos,theres still the whole witness report form to fill in,review of footage,identify the vehicle involved,it can be a draining process to keep having to do it repeatedly,when all you want to do is ride a bike in some sense of safety— ReadingTim
I wouldn’t be so confident on that score. I used to work in a cop shop, and saw quite a few issues with drivers claiming they weren’t driving at the time, and the onus was always on the police to have good photographic evidence from speed cameras etc (these were always speeding offences). Of course these are for the purposes of prosecution, not to simply send a letter out which I guess needs less evidence of who was actually driving.
Kendalred wrote:
The article is specifically about using a handheld device whilst driving – so it would be necessary to have an image of the driver, the device and their hand. However it isn’t necessary for the driver to be identifiable, as according to the article the punishment for the registered keeper failing to identify the driver is the same as the punishment for handheld device offence – so the same as speeding in that regard.
I think that it is the ‘notice of intended prosecution’ that requires registered keepers to identify the driver and these can be sent for inconsiderate driving offences (which is what close passes tend to be treated as). The important thing is that the NIP needs to be received by the registered keeper within 14 days (or at least sent, such that it could ordinarily be received within 14) – so the sooner footage is provided to the police, the better.
Other offences, such as parking and bus lane violations are deemed to be the responsibility of registered keeper – regardless of who was driving. Now that these are mostly ‘de-criminalised’ they are dealt with by the relevant local council – I don’t know if any of them accept footage from the public. I’ve sent photos of cars blocking cycle routes (there’s a particular junction on my way to work where there was a problem with vehicles parking on the double yellows and even on the traffic refuge island) – it seems to have improved the situation greatly.
red_nick wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617
A bit like this, I firmly believe that if the driver had been identified they should have been jailed.
May seem a little draconian, bit how about failure to identify the driver means the registered keeper faces the rap for the offence 🙂
ReadingTim wrote:
I use a bar-mounted camera, as I agree with jigr about not mounting anything on a helmet.
If you can catch the vehicle in traffic, you can usually get a pic of the driver. On yesterday’s close pass, I managed to catch them up twice, the second time I got off the bike on the pavement and held it up to make sure I got them – at which point, they suddenly became very apologetic…
barongreenback wrote:
Stealth ghost X is small and not that obvious – £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.
hirsute wrote:
I’ve looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering. Likewise I don’t want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet. Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don’t look too obvious on the bike?
— hirsuteStealth ghost X is small and not that obvious – £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.— barongreenback
Reviews a bit patchy on Amazon though.
hirsute wrote:
I’ve looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering. Likewise I don’t want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet. Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don’t look too obvious on the bike?
— hirsuteStealth ghost X is small and not that obvious – £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.— barongreenback
Mobious https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&ei=0Rj8XNHIJpy11fAP3u6k6A0&q=mobius+camera&oq=mobius+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.6.0i67l10.1952.1952..5616…0.0..0.102.102.0j1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71.sPfVh2WXrGg
barongreenback wrote:
I asked the same question a while ago & got some recommendations:
https://road.cc/content/forum/257098-camera
Still not made my mind up. Fancied the Fly12 but just too big & cumbersome.
flobble wrote:
I’m no expert, but here’s my tips:
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yep, got that problem. The Android app. for Cycliq won’t work talking to the camera over bluetooth, only over wifi, and even then its problematic. Easiest way I’ve found to get at the footage is to plug it in and access it as a USB drive — then I find that either the time and date have rest themself or it just simply hasn’t recorded anything for a week. I find it to be a frustratingly expensive flashing light for much of my use
ajft wrote:
I’ve given up using the app as it was so unreliable. I just connect via USB and when I need to change the time/date, I manually edit the config.txt file on the SD card.
What we need is some well designed competition for Cycliq. What I want is good quality video and automatic overwriting of old footage when the storage is full.
I’m up to 90 reports for 2019
I’m up to 90 reports for 2019 so far. I best put some effort in haha.
I take my hat off to WM
I take my hat off to WM Police which seems to be the force that is taking vulnerable road users’ safety the most seriously out of any force. What is shocking is that other forces just don’t get it, or can’t be bothered – if there were this many ‘attempted assaults’ in any other walk of life there would be outrage and the police would be acting pronto and back peddling on why they hadn’t acted earlier.
Having said that I do have some concerns regarding the ‘them and us’ culture and how using the vulnerable road users to ‘dob in’ drivers could have undesirable consequences – take the ‘citizen hero’ above, it will not take much for him to be identified as he rides the same route every day and all the drivers are being prosecuted from video evidence on that route. We all know how crazy drivers can be when angry and if they weren’t in their cars they would probably be perfectly normal law abiding citizens – my fear is this will make them hate cyclists even more, and it only takes one crazy with the red mist down because of some perceived injustice to snap whilst behind the wheel…
PP
I’ve reported (uploaded) two
I’ve reported (uploaded) two really dangerous close passes last month and heard nothing at all. Does anyone with experience of WMP reporting have any idea on the time frames for response. It sounds like they have alot on the plate so wonder if that is adding times on for processing.
The only issue I have with
The only issue I have with helmet mounted cameras is that they can become a liability in the event of an accident and possibly, can increase the severity of any head injuries.
If my memory serves me correctly, I’m sure the severity of Michael Schumacher’s head injury was caused by a helmet mounted camera.
jigr69 wrote:
It wasn’t the camera which was the issue, more the post mount which was punched through the helmet and onwards…
I’ve raised 31 incident reports in 2019 with Surrey Police for close passes. All bar 3 have had “no further action” as the police either think there’s no evidence of a “crime” or they’re not in the public interest to pursue. The remaining 3 have had “warning letters” sent to the drivers.
I did ask them to explain why so few of the videos are followed-up on and they told me that as there’s no distance limit defined in law then essentially a close-pass can’t be prosecuted. They said that they looked for things other than distance in the videos – eg. swerving, forcing others to brake etc.
Although, naturally, when I’ve queried incidents with them, the Police do say things like “you were too far from the kerb” (even though a distance isn’t defined in law), you didn’t swerve so the vehicle couldn’t have been too close – or even, you swerved out of the way so the driver obviously wasn’t too close.
These 2 videos had no further action when reported. The red line in the video is the centre of the bike – with handlebars approx 25cm to either side.
https://youtu.be/eK9chxwjiqc
https://youtu.be/o1WEuk5AibM
I’m getting the impression that Surrey Police will only take action when there’s an injury.
jboss wrote:
Here’s the quote from TVP for one of the videos I sent in:
“Many thanks for submitting the on-line report and footage.
On review of these, it has been decided that no action will be taken by the police at this time
The footage does show a close pass though does not provide enough evidence of an offence being committed in which it would be proportionate for the police to deal with retrospectively at this time”
And another:
“The footage shows you riding <location> and a Tesco delivery van passing you on the offside before moving back to the nearside under braking before it turns left into <named> Road at the traffic lights.
I appreciate it looks a little untidy and you may have had to adjust your speed a little but the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision. The footage doesn’t contain sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation because there is no prospect of bringing a prosecution.
In my opinion you did the right thing by anticipating and adjusting your riding but you didn’t need to take action in order to avoid a collision.”
Basically, it seems that unless you actually get hit, it wasn’t either a close pass or a left hook!
Contacted Tesco and they spent ages making up various excuses of not being able to view the footage and then just stopped replying altogether.
@LastBoyScout:
@LastBoyScout:
So, are they saying that “anticipating and adjusting your riding” isn’t taking an action?
The statement that “the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision” is utter horrocks – if you had to “anticipate and adjust your riding” then you (a Road User) did have to take action, surely?
The charging guidelines for
The charging guidelines for dangerous driving contain this example:
“failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home”
This is a useful reminder should the police not react appropriately to a reported incident.
This: https:/
This: https://singletrackworld.com/2016/10/calculating-a-passing-distance-using-camera-footage/ is really good advice.
Is it me or is 3 points a bit
Is it me or is 3 points a bit ridiculous for the offence in the video above? The driver has made 2 obvious attempts to basically knock the cyclist off…how is that careless driving?!?!??! Should be attempt assault or something
StoopidUserName wrote:
You beat me too it. I think its BTBS who always says that “assault” includes “causing someone to fear for their safety”…
StoopidUserName wrote:
I don’t think he’s tried to knock the cyclist off, otherwise he would have done quite easily – I think it would have been easier to knock him off than to do what he did. It strikes me as extremely careful driving, paying a great deal of attention. At the very least though I’d have thought it was threatening behaviour, and dangerous driving.
Where I am (Lancashire) the
Where I am (Lancashire) the local plod don’t seem to give 2 hoots about close passes so wondering if I’m wasting my time with a camera anyway as even if I do report something nothing will get done so what’s the point?
Even under “Driving without
Even under “Driving without due care and attention” three points is the minimum penalty. Typically lenient sentence.
Given the numbers of police
Given the numbers of police informants/wannabe cops as evidenced here, I’m surprised there’s any crime at all in the UK…..
Xenophon2 wrote:
“Police informants”? Piss off, you feeble troll.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Well, if not that, what do you want to call it? Concerned citizens? But hey, whatever floats your boat, I’ll donate a plastic badge if you post your address 🙂
Xenophon2 wrote:
/
So Xenophon2 do you have a list of crimes that Citizens should report and those they shouldn’t or do you think that people shouldn’t report any crimes to the police?
gmac101 wrote:
I’m not sure about common law jurisdictions such as the UK nor about whether you use ‘crime’ colloquially or in a legal sense, but in civil law jurisdictions the terme ‘crime’ is only used for the most serious offences such as murder etc. Lower gradations are infractions and felonies where I am, don’t know about the UK.
For ‘crimes’ in the legal sense it can be argued that there’s a moral obligation to report. If that holds for ‘less serious’ cases is debatable. Also, there’s -at least to me- a huge difference between reporting behaviour that constitutes a breach of the law and where an individual is harmed as a consequence and going out decked out with cameras, hunting for persons infringeing such as in the case of the 325 mobile phone users. If you fall in the latter category, turn a hobby into a profession, hope you can convince the screening board that you’re psychologically fit and join a law enforcement agency.
At least strictly legally, where I am, apart from a few exceptions such as officials who are required by law to notify the public prosecutor of any criminal activity that they become aware of, doctors who encounter child abuse and cases where not reporting means that you’re not assisting a person in grave danger where you could have done so without incurring any personal risk there’s no legal obligation for a citizen to report anything.
I actually work in law enforcement (nothing to do with road traffic, mind) and from personal experience -which admittedly is not representative- I can tell you that in my field out of every 10 ‘helpful’ reports that come in, 5 are either totally bogus, come frome someone who has a personal motive for denouncing and who at least significantly embellishes things, from a person of whom it transpires that they have severe psychological issues and who mention things that are objectively impossible, about 3 come from well meaning people who think they’ve seen something illegal but where it turns out that they misinterpreted a situation and the remaining 2 *may* turn out to be useful. I’m not even counting the anonymous tips that are mostly useless, unless they come from criminals ratting on the competition. Admittedly, cases where samaritans show up on my doorstep bearing recordings and irrefutable material evidence are few and far between.
My 2cents is that a society of snitches is not one where I’d personally like to live, reminds me of the DDR.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Best not to comment then on an country you lack knowledge of.
Like I say ‘Best not to comment then on an country you lack knowledge of”.
For example, last night I captured one driver deliberately driving the wrong way down a one way street suitable for only one car and driving on the pavement to avoid a collision. 10 seconds later, another driver driving over the pavement to use a pedestrian only zone and I heard pedestrians complaining they had to get out of the way.
About 10 minutes later, I was passed by a driver doing around 50 in a 30 approaching a roundabout where they knew they would have to give way or slow right down.
There is absolutely no need to go ‘hunting’.
Facepalm – utterly clueless of what it is like to cycle in built up areas of the UK.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Sounds like you may be in the wrong profession. Particularly given your suggestion that ‘only’ 20% of reports leading to cases to be investigated means that it not worth having any of them.
mdavidford wrote:
Maybe the Germans should have more snitches……
Der Spiegel reported at the end of 2017 that, since 1950, there had been 780,000 deaths and 31 million injured on the roads. The Germans like the freedom to kill people on the roads so much that the use of video cameras (dash cams) is forbidden by law.
Dingaling wrote:
It’s a bit more complex than that in Germany. They have strict privacy laws and don’t like continuous filming of public places (e.g. roads), but they have allowed dash cam footage to be accepted as evidence. They also specify that publicly shared footage must have faces and license plates blurred but presumably that wouldn’t apply if you’re just submitting it as evidence (not on YouTube).
https://www.dw.com/en/dashcams-in-germany-permissible-in-court-court-rules/a-43788494
Xenophon2 wrote:
As is common for a very conservative kind of person (which you seem to be) you fail to grasp the fact that there are power-differences in society and that some groups have to look after their self-interest when threatened by groups with more power. They can either do that the legal way, by notifying the authorities about the more powerful groups habitual abuse of power, or they can try and take it into their own hands with violence or vigilante actions.
Are you seriously saying ‘as someone who works in law enforcement’ (an oddly vague descriptor) you think the latter option is preferable?
If not – what do you suggest people do?
Xenophon2 wrote:
I’d call it people objecting to others threatening their lives and attempting to follow the correct procedure for addressing it. It’s why we _have_ police. If you’d prefer to abolish them and have everyone fight it out between each other with individual violence, have a go putting that to the electorate as a policy
I gather you disaprove of people trying to involve the law and prefer people knifing each other as a means of settling gripes?
There needs to be some form
There needs to be some form of registation system for cars, maybe with a numberplate on display, then drivers will stop breaking the law.
Looking at this report and
Looking at this report and comments on the page it appears alot of prosecution has to do with Police attitude. West Midlands were the first to see offences against cyclists to be an offence, where as other Police authorities are reluctant to do so. When is the Home Office going to learn from West Midlands Police and ensure the same attitude is conceyed in all Police authorities?
didsthewinegeek wrote:
Police Forces are probably pretty much tied by the CPS who will decide if prosecution is warranted. You are then relying on that force to either have a chat and issue a caution based on the footage or invite the motorist to a driver awareness course. More often than not other offences come to light as well. Here in Scotland unless you are injured the Fiscal isn’t interested and it looks like the CPS has issued similar guideline.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
That sums it up perfectly.
A bit of a postcode lottery you would say.
You are correct about post
You are correct about post codes being a difference. Unfortunately with limited spend the local PCC’s are having to prioritise the areas to focus on. So whilst every regional force will have the same essential departments (traffic, Response, Community, etc.) how much they spend for each area will be different.
Luckily for us in WM, one of the traffic team who happened to be a cyclist managed to convince the higher ups on a “better” way and got funding and branding of Road Harm Reduction Team to tackle helping protect more vulnerable road users like Peds and Cyclists. So operation close pass, park safe and others were born.
As Legs and others have mentioned, alot of those caught are probably sent on Training which the some Police get money from, so the department is probably “making a profit” but that just means more money spent to tackle crime either for the RHRT or other places.
Good on this rider. I’ve zero
Good on this rider. I’ve zero sympathy for any motorists who have been caught out.
Xenophon 2
Xenophon 2
Crime in the UK is used to describe an action that breaks the law, so driving whilst using a hand held phone is crime. Minor crimes may be prosecuted in a magistrates court without a jury, but they are all referred to as crimes. The vast majority of driving offenses have the potential to result in injury or death and having lost family members to road violence I really dont have a problem with people reporting poor driving, police and the prosecuting authorities always have the option not take it further. Road policing has been cut in the UK, sometimes by up to 80% and there is evidence of deaths and injuries increasing. Do you stand by and let more people die?
Comparing the reporting of potentially fatal actions carried out in public spaces to the police with the actions of the internal security services of the DDR is a pretty long stretch
It is a worrying trend that
It is a worrying trend that Policing the Public Highway is being shouldered by ordinary road users with cameras.
But I predict that some time in the near future all “video evidence”from unofficial sources will be deemed unadmissable in all courts.
As CGI software becomes more accessible and usable on home PCs, video evidence will become considered unreliable and treated as “edited”.
Meanwhile, back at the turn
Meanwhile, back at the turn of the year, there was a flurry of news stories about “new” legislation, and the inclusion in the Highway Code, of a “minimum passing distance”.
This’ll do, to represent the many … https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/8065873/road-law-changes-mot-2019/. Note – “The Highway Code states drivers should leave at least 1.5m (4.9ft) between the car and a cyclist – which is roughly the width of a standard car door.”
Hot air. Shit-stirring by the Sun.
As of June 2019, the Highway Code states no such thing. No change. Not one. 🙁
I was shocked that Texas has
I was shocked that Texas has 10 deaths a day on it’s roads, I occasionally dip into SteetsBlogUSA, that’s double the UKs, looked up the population, less than 1/2 of the UKs. So worse than 4 times as dangerous. Freedom!
I applaud those recording and reporting those breaking the law and making our streets more dangerous.
The subject of this thread,
The subject of this thread, filming traffic offences for the purpose of starting a prosecution, is illegal in Germany. The use of a dash cam is illegal except for personal use though the BGH in Karlsruhe has stated that video evidence of an accident can be evaluated by a court.
My point is, basically, the German authorities value the right to privacy higher than the right to safety as a road user.
Dingaling wrote:
they seem to be confused if they think a public space such as a road is also a private place.
Sort of off-topic, but if I
Sort of off-topic, but if I was to film a car speeding through our village, then could I submit this to the Police for action, or at least a warning letter to the driver?
The speed of the car could be precisely calculated from how long it took to pass two known fixed points, eg signposts or road markings.
PRSboy wrote:
Probably not as there’s no speed calibration of video cameras and I can’t see that the police are going to be doing video analysis for a possible speeding case.