Submissions to police of video evidence of poor driving have risen since the Highway Code was updated at the end of January according to dashcam manufacturer Nextbase, which also operates the portal many forces use to allow people to upload footage.
Meanwhile, Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police, who is the national lead on fatal collision investigation reporting at the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) says that “the police can’t be everywhere all the time, but the public can be” – and is urging cyclists to use cameras on their helmets or handlebars to catch law-breaking drivers.
Our own Near Miss of the Day feature now runs to more than 750 articles. Not all of the videos we have shown in the series have resulted in action being taken against the driver, but many have – including some cases where footage has been re-examined after being highlighted on road.cc.
Speaking to Telegraph.co.uk, DCS Cox – who also raises funds through charity runs and bike rides for the road collision victims’ charity RoadPeace – said: “It’s an individual choice, and it’s a choice to report any footage that they may capture.
“But the feedback I have from cyclists and drivers, who find some of the driving standards unacceptable and are deeply frustrated by it, is that they welcome the opportunity to provide footage for us.”
Bryn Brooker of Nextbase told the newspaper that submissions through its portal had risen since changes to the Highway Code – including a Hierarchy of Road Users aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, and motorists being advised to leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists – were introduced in late January.
He said that whereas drivers who put other road users at risk “just got away with it,” the availability of footage from dashcams in cars or through videos shot by cyclists mean it is now easier to bring law-breakers to justice.
He added that Nextbase is “really aimed at dangerous drivers, not drivers who made a simple mistake.”
Police forces across the country have faced a funding crisis since the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition – which also scrapped targets to reduce road casualties – came to power in 2010.
As a result, many roads policing units throughout the UK are under-resourced, making third party footage captured by motorists and cyclists an essential tool in combatting poor driving that puts others in danger.
Cycling UK policy director Roger Geffen told Telegraph.co.uk: “I wish cyclists didn’t feel the need to have helmet cameras. The world would be a better place if they didn’t feel the need to do so.
“If we want to normalise cycling, not just for the battle-hardened, Lycra-wearing stereotype of cyclists but as a normal thing that grandparents and grandchildren alike can do as a way of getting from A to B, then we need to take dangerous drivers off the road.
“If dashcam and helmetcam footage is part of the means to do that, in the absence of proper road policing, then so be it,” he added.
81 thoughts on “Highway Code changes: video submissions made to police rise as cyclists urged to report law-breaking drivers”
I don’t see why there can’t
I don’t see why there can’t be a national department for dealing with these, with a clear set of standards, which could be published so we know not to waste our or their time (or get to argue about the criteria).
A specialist team could rattle through them, filtering out exceptions like likely repeat offenders for special local police treatment.
IanMSpencer wrote:
And if they fined offenders the service could become self financing.
War on the motorist!
War on the motorist! Incentives to snitch!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Or a disincentive to break the law…
Repeating a thought from
Repeating a thought from Cycling Mikey, a “grass” moves in the criminal’s circles and may be a trusted accomplice, a mate – CM makes the point that he is not the phone using driver’s mate.
IanMSpencer wrote:
This is the biggest issue with the current “system” we have. I can submit a video of a really nasty/dangerous close-call to my local plod and have them laugh it off, only to come here and see something one tenth as bad on NMOTD that resulted in points/fine. There should be a set of comprehensive guidlines that allow no room for interpretation, which all police forces adhere to.
But what happens if it’s wtjs
But what happens if it’s wtjs’s force that sets the standard?
Be like the MET coming up with the standards on racism, mysoginy and corruption…
Hopefully it wouldn’t be a
Hopefully it wouldn’t be a specific force that sets the national guidelines. We already have guidance on standards of driving, but many forces choose to ignore it when deciding on whether to act on dangerous drivers. That choice needs to be taken away from them.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
How can that not be the responsibility of the Department of Transport…
IanMSpencer wrote:
I entirely agree, and one of the standards should be that if a driver is filmed breaking the law, they get sanctioned, no ifs no buts. At the moment the Met has a ridiculously equivocal system where mitigation is introduced for no reason; for example, I was recently informed that with advance cyclist stop lines a driver will only get an NIP if they occupy the whole of the box up to the stop line on a single lane road. If they only occupy the rear half of the box on a single lane road, or go right up to the ASL on a two-lane road, they only get a warning letter. Similarly, apparently for red light jumpers to get an NIP one has to present clear evidence that the light was red for a whole two seconds before the car drove through – way over the time a driver within the speed limit who is paying attention should need to react to an amber. Obviously some offences, such as close passing, are more open to debate as to whether a video shows an offence, but it would help if black and white laws were enforced in a black and white manner, you break ’em, you pay the price.
Funny how every rule gets
Funny how every rule gets “stretched” in drivers’ favour. I find that over time the stretch beds in, becomes the new normal and then there’s another stretch. And that’s before the trivialising, denying and and downplaying from the individual driver has even got started.
Cameras and the processing power needed to sit behind them are the right way to go because the offending by drivers is on an industrial scale which needs to be matched. While it’s nice to see police Twitter accounts saying they’ve pulled someone over and vehicle is prohibited, etc, that’s just tackling it one at a time.
David9694 wrote:
I hope to live to see a time when every car carries a mandatory tamperproof GPS chip registering speed, position relative to red lights etc. It would take huge political will and would have to overcome a huge amount of whinging, but it’s surely the way to go?
Cars are a conflation of
Cars are a conflation of transport, and individual power/prestige. A car is many people’s greatest expression thereof and many also see it as a way “to stick it to the man”. Right from the start, it’s often been a puerile game of cat and mouse, drivers and police.
If cars were just about safe, convenient transport (let’s not get started on all the environmental/pollution factors just now) then the GPS idea would be a simple one to do. The e-scooters point the way as to what can and should be done.
David9694 wrote:
Add to that, how every Monday the local papers will have a list of where the police will be stationing mobile speed cameras for the next week. Do they also confirm where police patrols will be, or which houses have burglar alarms, for the convenience of the robbing community? (“It’s just a war on burglars!”).
Intelligent Speed Assist,
Intelligent Speed Assist, mandatory on new cars in the EU (and probably UK) from July, may be the first step in that journey.
Doctor Darabuka wrote:
Yes, definitely a move in the right direction.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That would be fine if and only if you can guarantee that a future government won’t be authoritarian and/or Evil…
Quite right. We can’t trust
Quite right. We can’t trust the governments not to misuse this information – and previous evidence e.g. from the War on Terror shows that new powers will be misused to some extent.
Fortunately the public has seen through attempts to spy on them e.g. inject them with chips so they can be traced. Social media and the mobile phones we carry everywhere with us be praised! Without these beneficial technologies they’d have gotten away with it too.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Please forgive me, I think you are being sarcastic but I’m not 100% sure.
Forgiven. Self-indulgent of
Forgiven. Self-indulgent of me. I’ll try to stick to my less snarky drivel about more better infra and fewer motor vehicles.
brooksby wrote:
I’d settle for just our current one not being evil, but maybe I’m a dreamer
I say that, but maybe you’re
I say that, but maybe you’re not the only one?
As I have become older and
As I have become older and wiser, having lived under many governments of differing flavours, I don’t believe that any of them are competent or able to behave honourably, be it partygate (both Boris and Kier) or Blair with WMD’s or Mays handling of Bexit and on an on!
Gimpl wrote:
Well, I’ve been around the block a few times, and this is the worst government in my lifetime; nothing else comes close to their incompetence, venality and outright lies.
Seconded, Johnson is the
Seconded, Johnson is the tenth PM of my lifetime and he sneaks the biscuit for the most corrupt, dishonest and downright disrespectful of the office with insolent ease.
eburtthebike wrote:
The worst Governments always seem to coincide with the most useless oposition and can do whatever they want. Eventually they lose an election and we hope for positive change but are usually dissapointed with more of the same.
NOtotheEU wrote:
I don’t think Boris has done anything as bad as Blair taking us to war and invading another country on an outright lie (Putinesque) – disgraceful!
I’m certainly not here to support Boris or the Tory party – my point is they’re all corrupt, lying, useless tossers.
I don’t think Boris has done
I don’t think Boris has done anything as bad as Blair taking us to war and invading another country on an outright lie (Putinesque) – disgraceful!
I’m certainly not here to support Boris or the Tory party – my point is they’re all corrupt, lying, useless tossers.
brooksby wrote:
With ANPR and CCTV everywhere, plus the ability to trace mobile devices, the capacity already exists for an authoritarian/evil government to abuse its powers, that genie is well and truly out of the bottle I’m afraid. In any case, the fact that a law or policy could be abused is not always a reason not to have it; ultimately one could say all sorts of things we need for a well-ordered society, from keeping an electoral roll to maintaining a police force, could be abused in the wrong hands (not that I’m saying they’re in the right hands at the moment, you understand…).
David9694 wrote:
I remember the clamour from car
wankersenthusiats like “Jezza” to up the speed limits on Motorways to 80mph as “most people” drive close to that due to the 10% give in the laws on speeding. Of course if they had got their way then “most people” would be driving at 90 for the same reason.Consistency of the police
Consistency of the police response is key – I’ve mentioned before that over the past 4 years of reporting to the same police force (Norfolk), the response for the same level of close pass/careless driving has varied from constant NIP to warning letters to no further action. The switch between action happens suddenly and then stays consistent for several months, so I can only assume there is massive variation in how different officers interpreted the same offence.
Quote:
I think there’s value in highlighting the simple mistakes too as a simple warning letter can be enough to get a driver to be more careful. Plus it can make drivers more attentive of cyclists as they might be using a cam.
(Like in 1984, the fear of being watched can make people moderate their behaviour)
Simple mistakes in a tonne or
Simple mistakes in a tonne or more, at speed can easily kill.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Agreed.
I also don’t think the distinction really matters after you’ve been seriously injured or killed.
If they really must be treated differently it’s really easy to tell. Does the driver look shaken, acknowledge their ‘one off’ mistake and apologise profusely or do they blame you, tell you to f**k off and drive off at max revs still shouting?
NOtotheEU wrote:
Agreed.
I also don’t think the distinction really matters after you’ve been seriously injured or killed.
If they really must be treated differently it’s really easy to tell. Does the driver look shaken, acknowledge their ‘one off’ mistake and apologise profusely or do they blame you, tell you to f**k off and drive off at max revs still shouting?
I’m not so sure it as easy to tell whether it’s a genuine mistake or a deliberate action in a lot of cases.
Is someone who is pulling out of a junction in front of a cyclist making a mistake that they haven’t seen the cyclist or have they actually spotted the cyclist and made a deliberate choice to pull out in front of them.
The whole NMOTD 755 is a case in point. From my point of view that was a deliberate action, but based on a lot of social media posts a significant number of people thought it was just a mistake.
And if you look at any close pass some people will see it as a mistake whereas some will see it as a deliberate action. How do you tell that a driver has made an innocent mistake if they overtake you into the face of oncoming traffic and simply misjudged your speed or the speed of the oncoming traffic or space available…. as opposed to a deliberate MGIF overtake.
Yes there will be some where it is relatively easy to spot a deliberate punishment pass, but they are few and far between in my experience. And the default position which would be adopted by the police would be that unless the driver had form for repeated close passing then it was a ‘mistake’ unless there are aggrevating factors such as horn use swerving towards the cyclist.
I’ve only had a few cases
I’ve only had a few cases where the driver has stopped to apologise and it was obvious they realised the possible consequences so I just asked them to look out for cyclists in future and wished them a pleasant day.
All the other times I’ve reported the incident if I’ve had time and the video was good enough. It may have only been a mistake but the next one could end the life of another cyclist or other vulnerable road user so they need to hear from the Police regardless. From my limited communication with the Police I understand a driver with a clean record will often just get a warning letter anyway if the incident wasn’t too serious.
The issues I have with
The issues I have with warning letters is that they will go to the registered keeper not necessarily the driver in question and, this is the bigger issue, do we know that a warning letter is then recorded somewhere on the police system against the car/driver in question?
Unless you have some record of the warning letters which have gone out to one car/household/driver how do police forces know that the driver has a history of close passing?
This sounds like a harsh opinion but warning letters are not worth the paper they are written on.
As I understand it they keep
As I understand it they keep a record though I can’t remember where I heard or read that. If i’ve gone to the trouble to report an incident then i felt it was dangerous so while I agree that a letter isn’t enough I’ve got to hope that the system works at least occasionally. Unfortunately we have to rely on the person who first views the video and then if they bump it up the chain, everyone else who deals with it. I have to believe that it works at least some of the time as the alternative is too depressing to think about.
I recieved this email from West Midlands Police last year;
This particular area of work is growing every year and hopefully in time we’ll be given extra resources so we can provide regular updates. Only time will tell I suppose but it’s something which I’ve been involved in for the last three years so I try and feed this back to my supervision so they know how it’s becoming a very useful way of prosecuting poor drivers.
Your reports tend to be very good. I would estimate that the vast majority of your footage ends up with education being offered to the Driver or on several occasions the matter is referred to Court. With the fact that you have not been called to give evidence as yet it shows when the Driver and the Defence are shown the footage in Disclosure, they plead Guilty in the First Hearing and take the punishment of Fine and Points.
All I can say is keep reporting poor driving incidents to us and thank you for helping us keep roads safer for everyone.
I’m willing to take this on face value as I have corresponded with this officer and another on a few occasions and they seem very genuine in their commitment to road safety, particularly for cyclists.
Wow. You’re the man, and WMP
Wow. You’re the man, and WMP is the force.
Are any of you submissions on NMOTD so we can learn what is worth submitting. Also any advice on what makes a good submission. I tend to let the video speak for itself but that strategy has had very limited success. I realise that different forces will respond differently but it will still be a useful guideline.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Thanks, but I can’t take any credit. It’s all down to the Police officers who actually care about their job. I’ve no idea what gets prosecuted and what doesn’t as they rarely give feedback on individual cases.
Personally I’ve learnt from watching LOTS of Youtube cycle videos. I copy the good ones and try to avoid making mine like the bad ones. I run front, back and helmet cams in good positions to get the evidence. I spend FAR too long editing the footage to make sure it’s good and usually only upload them if they are a slam dunk which I assume helps my credibility with the Police. Also to help credibility I always follow the rules of the road to the letter, try to always choose the safest option if i’m faced with a choice and try to not react too much, swear or abuse the driver. I try to say things like “wow that was scary close, and now they’re undertaking that lorry on a blind bend with pedestrians waiting to cross, what a terrible driver” just to make sure whoever is watching gets the point.
I had an email today from WMP
I had an email today from WMP that they are prosecuting one driver for careless driving and driving without a license. I had to review the video to refresh which one it was and it was when i was cycling here. I had indicated to move lane and was aware of a car tailgating. A van was also coming down in the other lane so I waited and when I made my manouvre, the car behind decided they wanted to MGIF and just overtook me. Now that bit I’m fine with the prosecution, just not sure on the driving without a license as at no point can you see the driver.
I also assume that because of the contact, they driver /owner is denying it and so it is a court case.
Unusual for WMP to update you
Unusual for WMP to update you at all in my experience. In hundreds of reports they have only informed me of one case of Failing to inform police of driver details and one of driving without due care and attention, both of which were going to court. The latter was probably one of the least dangerous incidents I have reported so who knows why they informed me of just these two?
I think it is just the
I think it is just the potential court case for this one as well as one line mentioned witness services will contact me. Did yours end up in court in the end?
They were both going to court
They were both going to court.
Nov 2020
A prosecution is being raised against the REGISTERED KEEPER of the vehicle VOLVO, reg no: ******* for the offence of: Failing to inform police of driver details (Sec 172 RTA 1988), This person failed to comply with two requests for the information, which is an offence in its’ own right. If satisfied the court will ultimately prove in his absence if he continues to think that ignoring his legal obligation might make them go away.Thank you for your commitment to helping the police improve road safety.
Seems like the officer took this one personally!
Oct 2021
The driver of the vehicle that you reported to us is to be prosecuted for the offence of: DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. Any further case updates should be provided by our witness support department, including any requirement to attend court to give evidence. Thank you for your support in improving road safety.
I haven’t heard anything else since.
Mine is the same as the
Mine is the same as the second one although with the line
“Drive otherwise than in accordance (no licence) “
I wonder if your cases were dropped or whether they admitted guilt to save court, or is it just massively delayed.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I asked why I had never been called to court after an officer told me the majority of my submissions are acted on with a few going to court;
on several occasions the matter is referred to Court. With the fact that you have not been called to give evidence as yet it shows when the Driver and the Defence are shown the footage in Disclosure, they plead Guilty in the First Hearing and take the punishment of Fine and Points.
I choose to be positive and believe them but with some of the horror stories we hear about other forces, who knows? They also told me it’s fine to delete the original video files from any report after 12 months so I imagine the cases are finished.
Detective Chief
Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police is urging cyclists to use cameras on their helmets or handlebars to catch law-breaking drivers
There’s not much point telling the public when, for instance, Lancashire Constabulary’s OpSnapLancs just ignores whatever is sent in- DCS Cox needs to tell the police! I have shown this before but this is what you have to agree to in order to have a submission ‘accepted’ by Lancashire Constabulary:
I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR
I have never seen any motor vehicle or cycle with any ‘notification on any mode of transport’ or on any CCTV installation, so what is the purpose of this ridiculous bogus stipulation? It’s obviously a dodge.
As I understand it, the only
As I understand it, the only time you need to worry about GDPR with dashcams is if it’s a shared vehicle (e.g. business van, taxi). As dashcams usually record sound you need to warn the driver and passengers.
Although I potentially have 5
Although I potentially have 5-6 on a 25 mile ride. Still need to review them all to see how they come out but I was obviously invisible today as had 3 people pull out on my as I’m travelling at 20+mph and almost on top of them. Also one phone user but not sure if helmet cam caught that one (in a sporty Audi with “3d” plates natch), one speeder doing at least 30mph in a 20, and one woman who decided last second (as is she had already turned almost into it) that she didn’t want to go right at the lights but straight on and almost took out the other car who knew which direction they were going.
Did have a MGIF as well but they did give me plenty of room even if the manouvre was pointless as the lights ahead were red.
On review, uploaded the first
On review, uploaded the first person to pull out on me, the speeder (although will see if they try to do me for also “speeding”) and the mobile phone user. Although the latter had illegally spaced 3d plates but the plate i’m reading HO55EBS seems to be registered to a black jag and not a red Audi Knobsmobile. Any ideas?
Neither HO55EBS or HO55ERS
Neither HO55EBS or HO55ERS return a red audi. I’d flag it as potentially having cloned plates.
I did in the report I
I did in the report I submitted. I also did try other letters that sometimes gets changed by the “screwhole” but still nothing. Hopefully it is just the DVLA to catch up so the Knob does get done for Mobile phone and illegal plates. Not holding my breath though.
It should be read that ALL
It should be read that ALL road cyclists have a responsibility to bring those rule breakers to account.
By doing so, you could be saving the life of a fellow cyclist.
If we cannot hold motorists to account for the terrible consequences their illegal driving has then we may as well stay on our paddleboards.
Your camera footage could mean the difference:
In a guilty verdict.
A criminal conviction.
The payment of personal injury compensation.
The mindset change of ALL those drivers out there who will have to face the fact their actions will no longer only have consequences for OTHER road users.
It’s essential that we help our underfunded road traffic police and put forward evidence to arrest irresponsible driving.
If it’s not today. It could be you on that future ride that succumbs to that moment of breathtaking motoring ignorance. It could be you…
Road cyclist. It’s not about weight, cost or tedium.
That’s why YOU always wear a camera. Front and back!
It’d be better if the onus
It’d be better if the onus was on drivers to run dashcams and submit evidence. Car dashcams are cheaper as they don’t need a big internal battery, they don’t need to be waterproof and weight is much less of an issue.
I do wonder how many drivers
I do wonder how many drivers submit dashcam footage and what level of driving they submit them for. Forgetting actual collisions, there are several Youtube channels who release weekly videos filled with many examples of bad driving (both from Cammer and subject) and not one indicates whether it was submitted.
However WMP sent me an email on Wednesday asking me for a resubmission over a mistake on my original form and it was above 1850 submissions this year. I can’t believe that is all from cyclists. (although 15 of those would be mine).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
The thing with the dash cam videos, which despite being so badly telegraphed that you can for the vast majority tell what’s going to happen a long time before it happens, it staggers me how many drivers submit footage of their own bad driving as if they are looking for absolution from their peers.
Whenever those videos include a roundabout you can guarantee that it will either be some tool coming thundering onto the roundabout too fast, or being in the right hand lane and suddenly cutting across multiple lanes of traffic to get to an exit, or meandering round the outside lane in the roundabout to go to an exit about 3 or 4 further round.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
There was a story about this not so long ago. I think the upshot of it was that the police agreed that an offence was committed more often on the videos submitted by cyclists than videos by motorists.
Driver hits cyclist. Video
Driver hits cyclist. Video Evidence is required in court case. Do you (victiim) rely on driver to present evidence to support driver’s conviction and your personal injury claim.
Tricky.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
This actually happened to me. Police motorcyclist (in private car) knocked me off my motorbike and admitted full liability to the Police (who were called by him) and his insurance. Got a big payout and a nice letter from the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police explaining why he was not being prosecuted. Of course this was 1999 so pre action cam.
Lol. Gtf. Anyone that uses a
Lol. Gtf. Anyone that uses a camera, fair play, you do you.
But I’d rather people learnt how to drive and dangerous drivers kept off the roads then rely on the superpower of a camera keeping me safe.
People learn how to drive,
People learn how to drive, but then they are never tested again and fall into bad habits etc. So yes, tested again every 5 or 10 years would be one thing. I would even state the first retest should be within the first 2 years for newly passed driver as I know that was when I was at my worst.
However the dangerous drivers need to be caught first and preferably not after they have KSI’d someone so if Dash and Bike cams can help with that, I’m all for them.But as I wouldn’t push helmet use on anyone else (or tell people they shouldn’t wear them), I also wouldn’t be stating “every cyclist needs a camera front and back”.
Retests I’m all for, at the
Retests I’m all for, at the drivers expense. As a reachtruck driver I get tested every year,( more often then I legally need to be retested), with a health test every 5years. So chuck that in aswell, again at the motorists expense.
Maybe that would help weed out some of the dangerous drivers before they KSI. Unless they use the old, “but I’ll lose my job” argument, so let’s shut that door aswell.
And we we have that ‘Road Safety Expert?’ Loophole lawyer twat. Shut him up aswell, stop him setting precedents.
I’d have to agree with hawkinspeter , cars should be required to be use cameras. Possibly linked to a blackbox, so in the event of me being found laid crumpled at the side of the road the authorities can find out who was nearly by at X time and check footage
I don’t see why it wouldn’t
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be at the drivers expense being as original lessons and test would have been. However as others have pointed out in the past, it would rely on the government to up the amount of examiners to cope with the demand.
Many modern cars already have
Many modern cars already have a camera built in just behind the rear view mirror that is used to control safety features such as intelligent cruise control. Wouldn’t cost the manufacturers much more to set up a record function and use it as a dash cam you would have thought. Even better if it were on a loop and not accessible by the driver so they couldn’t wipe any impact recorded.
A Citroën 2 cv dolly wing
A Citroën 2 cv dolly wing mirror breaks your right arm in a close pass and continues its journey.
Do you.
A. Tie on a tree branch splint and carry on as normal.
B. Chuck your bike.
C. Regret that camera purchase.
door mirror.
door mirror.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
i just hope it’s never:
D. Facepalm with my one not broken arm for not charging my cameras last night.
Oh, and you forgot:
E. Wonder why the 2cv driver unscrewed their door mirror and then attached it to the wing? (sorry, couldn’t resist trolling you even though I agree with your constant ‘cajoling’ to run cameras on the road)
tigersnapper wrote:
Exactly. All it would need is a tamper proof blackbox storing gps and video data. And make fiddling with the box an offence or something.
Hopefully. That’s 10 years
Hopefully. That’s 10 years from now.
I’m talking about today.
Jimwill wrote:
Many modern cars already have a camera built in just behind the rear view mirror that is used to control safety features such as intelligent cruise control. Wouldn’t cost the manufacturers much more to set up a record function and use it as a dash cam you would have thought. Even better if it were on a loop and not accessible by the driver so they couldn’t wipe any impact recorded.
— Jimwill Exactly. All it would need is a tamper proof blackbox storing gps and video data. And make fiddling with the box an offence or something.— tigersnapper
It is called an event data recorder and is pretty much standard on new cars (I think it might even be required) – however I’m not sure how long it stores the data for before being overwritten. My car uploads (at least some of) the data, so I can go online and see how my car was driven on a particular journey, get fuel consumption and average speed – it’s a bit like Strava for cars, but with an emphasis on fuel economy rather than KOMs
I have a mate who is a
I have a mate who is a product director at JLR (they do have a lot of directors, so not that senior!) who asked the same question and got fobbed off with worries about the legality of recording without the owner’s consent, which I would have thought was resolved by putting an option on a menu, or leaving the SD card slot empty!
You get smashed into touch by
You get smashed into touch by a motorist.
Do you.
A. Regret sorting a camera
B. Throw your bike in the bin.
C. Take an ice bath and carry on as normal.
Like I say. You do you.
Like I say. You do you.
Myself, I can’t be arsed to buy and fit cameras to record the occasional close pass or mgif, then obsess over getting clips and sending them through whatever channels, when I can just give a handsignal showing my feelings then move on. Each to their own.
Besides cycling can be an off putting thing to try get into, all the stuff people are told they need to buy/wear. Shit, my local cycling club people won’t even let me add them on Strava incase I steal their bikes.. their loss. Why add another obstacle?
I get it. You’re a maverick.
I get it. You’re a maverick. You don’t want or need to work for “the man”. You’ll do it your way. Respect. Stay safe.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Admittedly, I’ve never used a paddleboard, but I reckon I’d probably be at more risk trying to take one of those down the road than I would cycling.
Maybe you should try that in
Maybe you should try that in Ayr – seems safe enough to row:
https://road.cc/content/news/206693-man-protests-bike-laneby-rowing-it
I dont agree it’s my
I dont agree it’s my responsibility at all, I didnt sign up to be an extension of the police force on the roads as a cyclist, I just want to ride my bike in peace & quiet and be left alone.
I dont need the extra stress & hassle it creates for me, more so as the local force appear to have down prioritised dealing with cycling camera footage submissions so it all feels a total waste of time anyway, the latest stats for Q1 across Suffolk/Norfolk, 448 submissions resulted in 80 NIPs, and 85 warning letters.
It’s barely making the roads safer at all
Awavey wrote:
I agree its by no means a responsibility – its a choice & hectoring people to do so like the OP – is bang out of order imo.
Besides its a perception/expectation thing. Not everyone has to run camera’s for those caught by them to become more cautious which is the actual result we want.
I prefer to call it cajole.
I prefer to call it cajole. Your wellbeing is important.
Years in the future I see
Years in the future I see this footage being incorporated into an educational stream* in an attempt to counter rising aggression on the hyperloops* called “The (ICE) Taxis** – a lesson from history”.
Thank you (and other camera users) in advance for your gallant documentation of these crimes. I may even join you some day. Just now I’m more about the top tiers of health and safety but indeed although better it does take longer.
* adjust as appropriate for future tech.
** Or more broadly “The Internal Combustion Engined Vehicle Drivers”
J Walter Weatherman would
J Walter Weatherman would disagree.