Speed Limits

[Phil xxkr]

40 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Should not forget - the government which is quite openly committing genocide... yes it is very good point, being owned by Geely, which is basically subsidiary of PLA is certainly one more reason to avoid the brand.

To make it more visual - this guy (de-facto Volvo owner) certainly does not look like supporter of democratic values:

Well if he's Scandavian I'm a China man 🤣

[Phil xxkr]

42 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Well if he's Scandavian I'm a China man 🤣

🤗

[doog442]

9 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

but the mantra is still speeding kills. Nope, idiotic driving of any type kills. Which can include speeding but is as likely to be for many other reasons that no-one can be bothered to investigate or change the behaviours.

 

Speed is a cause of death in one third of fatal accidents. So that's 1200 a year.  All fatalities are Investigated in an extremely complex manner so that conclusion is probably accurate. We can argue over what's 'acceptable' but to me this figure isn't. 

(Trust me I'm a natural petrolhead and can't quite resort to an IS300h so have no desire to quash things down to zero)

20 mph limits are totally justified in certain areas, schools etc. My lad lives in Devon and we visit quite often, even last weekend . We must have done 200 miles and  I'm not sure I saw a 20 mph limit unless it was warranted.  So why people are getting their knickers in a twist is slightly beyond me, I'd move there tomorrow. ...

[wharfhouse]

13 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Speed is a cause of death in one third of fatal accidents. So that's 1200 a year.  All fatalities are Investigated in an extremely complex manner so that conclusion is probably accurate. We can argue over what's 'acceptable' but to me this figure isn't. 

(Trust me I'm a natural petrolhead and can't quite resort to an IS300h so have no desire to quash things down to zero)

20 mph limits are totally justified in certain areas, schools etc. My lad lives in Devon and we visit quite often, even last weekend . We must have done 200 miles and  I'm not sure I saw a 20 mph limit unless it was warranted.  So why people are getting their knickers in a twist is slightly beyond me, I'd move there tomorrow. 

It's too simplistic though to say that speed is the cause of death in one third of fatal accidents - as I was trying to say in my post it's not speed per se it's idiotic driving in many cases - yes they may have been speeding by some arbitrary speed limit but more often than not the accident occurs through the driver making a stupid manoeuvre or losing control. Simply lowering a speed limit further still will not stop the idiots. Neither will more speed cameras or vans. A few more patrol cars actually out on the roads might help more as they would stand some chance of stopping the idiots before they actually cause an accident. I appreciate the police are pulled from pillar to post and have a lot of respect for what they have to do but until we simply stop dealing with the symptoms and get to the root causes where do we stop lowering the speed limits? In my 4 days in Devon (including travelling there and back from Berkshire) I didn't see any police patrol cars but did witness some shocking and downright dangerous driving. 

[LenT]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

I didn't see any police patrol cars but did witness some shocking and downright dangerous driving. 

As an aside, Phil, I think you’ve just highlighted one of the benefits of having a dashcam.  Mostly people fit them in case they are involved in an incident.  But they are equally effective at recording and prosecuting criminal driving to which you are fortunate enough to be only a witness.

It’s especially satisfying to know it results in a conviction when the perpetrator thinks they’ve got away with it.

[wharfhouse]

23 minutes ago, LenT said:

As an aside, Phil, I think you’ve just highlighted one of the benefits of having a dashcam.  Mostly people fit them in case they are involved in an incident.  But they are equally effective at recording and prosecuting criminal driving to which you are fortunate enough to be only a witness.

It’s especially satisfying to know it results in a conviction when the perpetrator thinks they’ve got away with it.

I have to date not fitted a webcam. If I believed that the authorities would be able to (and actually take the time to) prosecute on the strength of a webcam from my car I may reconsider but from what I understand the best the perpetrator caught on a webcam would receive is a letter in the post telling them not to do it again - unless an accident actually takes place in which case it would then be an insurance issue most likely. I'd be interested to know if law breaking driving has actually been prosecuted from a webcam without an accident occurring?  

[ALAW]

On 7/20/2021 at 7:45 PM, doog442 said:

A cost is put on every accident. A fatal accident cost more than a life, it's a considerable amount of money to deal with and Investigate, amounting to several million pounds. If a particular location suffers a certain number of say Injury accidents, its looked at in detail and improvements are made to road Infrastructure, traffic calming etc so more expense. 

I once lived happily a few years ago down a road opposite a school with a cross roads about 200 metres past the school 30mph limit. My next door neighbour was a retired police inspector. Many a time we would be in our front gardens doing the garden cutting a hedge passing time of day having a chat. lost count of the number of RTC,s at the cross roads. We asked how many there had been one year. We challenged what they told us. Apparently not all RTC,s are recorded they changed the way or criterea what is recorded apparently or that is what we were told. Just saying.

[ALAW]

On 7/20/2021 at 2:55 PM, steve2006 said:

It always makes me smile when you are on a quiet A road and the speed limit has been lowered from National to 50MPH but every country lane off the road remains national at 60MPH.

How true Steve. Near my town the A614 runs through it goes over a motorway flyover outbound its 30 to 60 coming back its 60 to 30. The thing is coming back the 30 starts about 20 or so mtrs from btm of the flyover. Just so happens this is a safety camera partnership area. Piggybank springs to mind.

[doog442]

2 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

It's too simplistic though to say that speed is the cause of death in one third of fatal accidents - as I was trying to say in my post it's not speed per se it's idiotic driving in many cases - yes they may have been speeding by some arbitrary speed limit but more often than not the accident occurs through the driver making a stupid manoeuvre or losing control. Simply lowering a speed limit further still will not stop the idiots. Neither will more speed cameras or vans. A few more patrol cars actually out on the roads might help more as they would stand some chance of stopping the idiots before they actually cause an accident. I appreciate the police are pulled from pillar to post and have a lot of respect for what they have to do but until we simply stop dealing with the symptoms and get to the root causes where do we stop lowering the speed limits? In my 4 days in Devon (including travelling there and back from Berkshire) I didn't see any police patrol cars but did witness some shocking and downright dangerous driving. 

It's not too simplistic, they're the facts I'm afraid although its a decent debate. There's an intrinsic link between speed and road traffic casualties. Reduce speed and you reduce the risk, even if its an idiot behind the wheel , adverse weather or someone with bad eyesight and slow reactions. Its basic stuff and not all victims are idiots. 

Speed cameras are far more effective than a police patrol and that's the reason RPU's have all but disappeared. You only have to look at fatality rates since the Introduction of this technology to see that it actually works it pains me to say. 

 

Here's a few links but nothing exhaustive.

https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/speed-cameras-factsheet.pdf

 

The first speed cameras in Great Britain were installed in West London in 1992. In the first three years of operation14 , at the camera sites they:  Reduced the number of people killed by 70%  Reduced the number of people seriously injured by 27%  Reduced the number of people slightly injured by 8%. A 1996 study15 found that speed cameras reduced casualties by about 28%.

Conclusion The evidence for speed cameras shows that they are effective at reducing speeds and preventing accidents, especially in preventing more serious and fatal accidents.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2018/03/30/speed-kills-new-global-study-confirms-strong-link-between-crash-risk-and-vehicle-speed/?sh=611e6df6529e

 

 

 

 

[ALAW]

12 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

As many have commented on here, the trend is clearly to lower speed limits, whether that is motorways (it won't be long before all are "smart" and the lower speed limits will be on most of the time), A roads or towns, and add more cameras to force compliance (just look at the metal gantry festooned "smart" motorways that are a complete eyesore). It's all in the name of "the science" (which is a few quangos that somehow manage to justify to the government whatever is their pet - public funded - project at the time).

I have spent many years of my career driving high mileages for work (and a lot of miles for leisure too) in the UK and Europe. I've had "fast" cars in the past and enjoyed them safely given the right time and place - and probably spent too much money on them! But in the last decade I could see the writing on the wall. It doesn't matter what logic is applied to the contrary it's clear where this is all heading. That was part of my decision in 2016 to get a Lexus IS 300h. On paper (and journalist "test drives") it doesn't seem to stack up when compared to some of the traditional competition but in the real world we are now in and inescapably moving further to then the IS 300h (along with other similar models) just "works" - comfortable, quiet, fast enough (given traffic and the many restrictions we now have), and even saves on the petrol bill as we all have to tootle along blindly in a big line of traffic at artificially low speed limits for mile after mile...

The standard of driving is atrocious on many of the journeys I now make but the mantra is still speeding kills. Nope, idiotic driving of any type kills. Which can include speeding but is as likely to be for many other reasons that no-one can be bothered to investigate or change the behaviours.

Fingers crossed I've got a good few decades left in me of driving but I've given up on expecting anything to "improve" in the way I think it should. No-one is listening to those of us who have spent much of our lives on the roads. The decisions are now made by those who probably never or at best infrequently actually drive themselves around the country. Going forwards I am falling into the bracket of a car just gives me a reasonable amount of freedom to get from A to B - the choice of model being to achieve that in some comfort and as stress free as possible - and to pursue other passions and spend my hard-earned money where the joy hasn't yet been removed...

 

 

I think you just spoke for me Phil. What's more i think we are probably the same on driving experience. You've took your time to post this well-done. I have something to add regarding camera's so i think i will start a thread in the lounge see what debate i can stimulate. Watch this space.

[wharfhouse]

7 minutes ago, doog442 said:

It's not too simplistic, they're the facts I'm afraid although its a decent debate. There's an intrinsic link between speed and road traffic casualties. Reduce speed and you reduce the risk, even if its an idiot behind the wheel , adverse weather or someone with bad eyesight and slow reactions. Its basic stuff and not all victims are idiots. 

Speed cameras are far more effective than a police patrol and that's the reason RPU's have all but disappeared. You only have to look at fatality rates since the Introduction of this technology to see that it actually works it pains me to say. 

https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/speed-cameras-factsheet.pdf

 

The first speed cameras in Great Britain were installed in West London in 1992. In the first three years of operation14 , at the camera sites they:  Reduced the number of people killed by 70%  Reduced the number of people seriously injured by 27%  Reduced the number of people slightly injured by 8%. A 1996 study15 found that speed cameras reduced casualties by about 28%.

Conclusion The evidence for speed cameras shows that they are effective at reducing speeds and preventing accidents, especially in preventing more serious and fatal accidents.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2018/03/30/speed-kills-new-global-study-confirms-strong-link-between-crash-risk-and-vehicle-speed/?sh=611e6df6529e

 

 

 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree over some of the data - there are lies, damn lies and statistics as the saying goes and vested interests will prove whatever they want. I am not against strategic speed cameras at proven accident black spots and when they first appeared the initial data I am sure backed up a reduction in fatalities - but we all know where this LED to as the quangos took control and lost the plot. The end game if one follows these arguments is back to the man with the flag in front of each car - and even some of those will get run down as someone's foot slips on the accelerator! As I said when I first commented on this thread after many years and hundreds of thousands of miles of driving I've given up with trying to reason with the unreasonable and given up enjoying driving like I used to (which was always safely and considerately) which means the car industry has lost my money and I take my enjoyment now from other activities (and spending my money there instead). 

 

[doog442]

43 minutes ago, ALAW said:

I once lived happily a few years ago down a road opposite a school with a cross roads about 200 metres past the school 30mph limit. My next door neighbour was a retired police inspector. Many a time we would be in our front gardens doing the garden cutting a hedge passing time of day having a chat. lost count of the number of RTC,s at the cross roads. We asked how many there had been one year. We challenged what they told us. Apparently not all RTC,s are recorded they changed the way or criterea what is recorded apparently or that is what we were told. Just saying.

It tends to be Injury RTC's that are recorded then graded slight/ serious etc. If there are no allegations, Injuries, and names and addresses exchanged then they were rarely recorded. Injury RTC's were always recorded and these formed the basis for any improvement work by the LA if required.

[ALAW]

2 minutes ago, doog442 said:

It tends to be Injury RTC's that are recorded then graded slight/ serious etc. If there are no allegations, Injuries, and names and addresses exchanged then they were rarely recorded. Injury RTC's were always recorded and these formed the basis for any improvement work by the LA if required.

I think your correct there Doog. It is how they are graded.

[LenT]

10 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

I have to date not fitted a webcam. If I believed that the authorities would be able to (and actually take the time to) prosecute on the strength of a webcam from my car I may reconsider but from what I understand the best the perpetrator caught on a webcam would receive is a letter in the post telling them not to do it again - unless an accident actually takes place in which case it would then be an insurance issue most likely. I'd be interested to know if law breaking driving has actually been prosecuted from a webcam without an accident occurring?  

An interesting pov, Phil.  

You seem to have discounted the original function of the dashcam, which was to provide evidence in case the owner was involved in an incident. 

I acquired my Lexus because my Accord was written off by a wayward HGV driver.  His insurers, Aviva, were being somewhat tardy in addressing my claim.  When presented with my camera evidence, they settled in full within a couple of days.

So fitting one is first and foremost a matter of self-interest.  I was surprised that it's taken so long for car makers to offer them as a factory fitting - although I do wonder how many owners will bother to reformat the SD card every two to three weeks.  Chances are that when they call upon it, it'll be full!

Addressing your concern that the police will take no action when presented with video evidence, I think that too is misplaced.  When I was treated to a display of dangerous driving, I found that they went to some lengths to track the other driver.  This included identifying the relevant force, who then located the car owner, to whom an officer then paid three visits in order to catch him in and confront him with the evidence.

On a national scale, if you look at your local force's website, you may find that they are part of what is called Operation Snap.  As the name suggests, this is a facility by which you can submit examples of dangerous driving for possible prosecution.

Alternatively, Nextbase has a couple of pages by which you can submit  videos to any force, and not just from their cameras.

https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

https://secureform.nextbase.co.uk/

Finally, if I've managed to get the technology right, I present for your entertainment ten examples of Dorset force obtaining driving convictions from submitted videos, to demonstrate that it often is worth the effort. 

I should add that 'Other Force's videos may be available'.  This was just the first one I found.  I hope the links work!

https://www.facebook.com/dorsetpolice/videos/operation-snap-traffic-offences-caught-on-dash-cam/314802406299286/

[wharfhouse]

6 minutes ago, LenT said:

An interesting pov, Phil.  

You seem to have discounted the original function of the dashcam, which was to provide evidence in case the owner was involved in an incident. 

I acquired my Lexus because my Accord was written off by a wayward HGV driver.  His insurers, Aviva, were being somewhat tardy in addressing my claim.  When presented with my camera evidence, they settled in full within a couple of days.

So fitting one is first and foremost a matter of self-interest.  I was surprised that it's taken so long for car makers to offer them as a factory fitting - although I do wonder how many owners will bother to reformat the SD card every two to three weeks.  Chances are that when they call upon it, it'll be full!

Addressing your concern that the police will take no action when presented with video evidence, I think that too is misplaced.  When I was treated to a display of dangerous driving, I found that they went to some lengths to track the other driver.  This included identifying the relevant force, who then located the car owner, to whom an officer then paid three visits in order to catch him in and confront him with the evidence.

On a national scale, if you look at your local force's website, you may find that they are part of what is called Operation Snap.  As the name suggests, this is a facility by which you can submit examples of dangerous driving for possible prosecution.

Alternatively, Nextbase has a couple of pages by which you can submit  videos to any force, and not just from their cameras.

https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

https://secureform.nextbase.co.uk/

Finally, if I've managed to get the technology right, I present for your entertainment ten examples of Dorset force obtaining driving convictions from submitted videos, to demonstrate that it often is worth the effort. 

I should add that 'Other Force's videos may be available'.  This was just the first one I found.  I hope the links work!

https://www.facebook.com/dorsetpolice/videos/operation-snap-traffic-offences-caught-on-dash-cam/314802406299286/

Thanks for this Len - I appreciate the original idea of the dash cam was aimed at insurance claims. I have thought long and hard about fitting one, though it goes against my principles of recording everything that goes on. That said, a couple of years ago one of our family was run off the road by an SUV on a single track road near a marina. The other car did not even stop. Our car was a write off (though was quite an old car). The only car that could have run our car off the road was recorded leaving the marina gates on their CCTV. The marina were happy to release the CCTV to our insurer and police (for data protection purposes not to us which is understandable), but when we discussed with the insurer they weren't interested and so all we could do was claim off our own insurance for the write off and the police weren't at all interested. If the car had a dash cam maybe that could have been different, but I will never know.

I am interested to hear that the police are following up on dash cam footage submitted to them and operation Snap - my own knowledge was out of date as I was under the impression that an actual prosecution (or penalty) could not be issued on the strength of this, just a caution. Having read the links you have posted I can see that the police can actually proceed to a penalty / prosecution based on the web cam footage and the drivers personal statement. It will be interesting to see how this shapes up going forward but good to hear that in your personal experience the effort was indeed put in to follow up on the report and footage.

Based on what I have learnt from your post I will be now considering dash cams for our cars. I don't believe that the insurance premium savings are significant from what I have checked so not worried about that, but for our own self interest in the event of an insurance claim or recording clearly dangerous and reckless driving that can be submitted to the police then the cost/benefit ratio is certainly swinging in their favour. Like you said, I am actually surprised they are not a factory option on new cars, though I understand there are issues with using them in some other countries (personal liberties or whatever) so maybe the manufacturers don't want to get embroiled in all of that. 

[Linas.P]

11 hours ago, LenT said:

But they are equally effective at recording and prosecuting criminal driving to which you are fortunate enough to be only a witness.

Not effective at all, because they are not considered as an evidence in majority of cases. If somebody crashes into you before driving through the red light, or if you capture car hitting the pedestrian and leaving - yes that may count. But if you take video of people speeding (in particular) or even driving through the red light, or committing other types of traffic offences it does not count. I know far a fact prosecution in such cases will fail. Police may take it as evidence and may try to prosecute, but that is because police have no clue about the law. As well it depends on the suspect - if they simply admit, then it may work, but if they challenge the evidence it will fail. 

So what is the difference between the first example and second? Well in first example you have recorded incident and the time it is recorded is evidence if police actually attends the the incident (in case of hit and run it is unlikely, in case of injured pedestrian it is likely), the video itself just comes together with the report as additional information. However, if you just submit the video to police, the timestamp on the video invalidates it right away - simply because there is no way to prove the time stamp is correct and if time is not correct, then evidence is not valid.

Here is example from my personal experience - guy hit my car driving through red light and run away,I had it on camera, police refused to attend, then they dropped the case as "not in public interest to investigate" 3 times, eventually they agreed to investigate it when I threatened to sue the police itself for neglecting their duties and then CPS lost the case in Magistrates court as it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt despite dashcam video. I don't know the details as they didn't call me as a witness, but I am quite confident it failed because police failed to attend and record the details.

In short - video recorded by public rarely counts as evidence in criminal cases, most serious driving offences are criminal and thus dashcam footage is not good enough evidence.

[wharfhouse]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not effective at all, because they are not considered as an evidence in majority of cases. If somebody crashes into you before driving through the red light, or if you capture car hitting the pedestrian and leaving - yes that may count. But if you take video of people speeding (in particular) or even driving through the red light, or committing other types of traffic offences it does not count. I know far a fact prosecution in such cases will fail. Police may take it as evidence and may try to prosecute, but that is because police have no clue about the law. As well it depends on the suspect - if they simply admit, then it may work, but if they challenge the evidence it will fail. 

So what is the difference between the first example and second? Well in first example you have recorded incident and the time it is recorded is evidence if police actually attends the the incident (in case of hit and run it is unlikely, in case of injured pedestrian it is likely), the video itself just comes together with the report as additional information. However, if you just submit the video to police, the timestamp on the video invalidates it right away - simply because there is no way to prove the time stamp is correct and if time is not correct, then evidence is not valid.

Here is example from my personal experience - guy hit my car driving through red light and run away,I had it on camera, police refused to attend, then they dropped the case as "not in public interest to investigate" 3 times, eventually they agreed to investigate it when I threatened to sue the police itself for neglecting their duties and then CPS lost the case in Magistrates court as it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt despite dashcam video. I don't know the details as they didn't call me as a witness, but I am quite confident it failed because police failed to attend and record the details.

In short - video recorded by public rarely counts as evidence in criminal cases, most serious driving offences are criminal and thus dashcam footage is not good enough evidence.

I fully understand your comments as that was what I thought too. I read this though following through to Operation Snap that Len pointed out.

• WHY DO I HAVE TO BE WILLING TO GO TO COURT TO GIVE EVIDENCE?OPEN OR CLOSE

  On average only 1 to 2% of all reported SNAP offences result in a Court appearance. There are other disposal methods available such as attendance on a driver improvement course or the acceptance of a fixed penalty notice.  The police may not be able to prosecute the offence without you being willing to attend court.

  If however on the very rare occasion the offence which you report does require a court appearance, then you will be fully supported through the process.

The video alone is not enough, the driver has to give a witness statement as to the offence the other driver has committed and give the video evidence to the police. They must also be willing to go to court. I don't doubt that you were willing to do all of that and I am still not sure all police forces will follow up on most of the submissions, but I suppose if just a few start to get prosecuted it might start and change something... 

[doog442]

Quite a few cyclists have been successful in using camera footage to support prosecutions against dangerous or inconsiderate drivers. I think the frustrating thing is that there's no common policy across all Police forces. This may be down to resources, budget or force policies. Reducing road accident casualties was always a top priority filtered down from the Government because as I said its an extremely expensive thing for the taxpayer to deal with.  

That said a camera is ideal in relation to incidents or accidents at Insurance level with no police Involvement where the burden of proof is much lower (balance of probabilities).

Oh hang on I've just read two posts up that police have no clue about the law  ...

[Linas.P]

The information provided above just goes to prove what I am saying. 1-2% results in Court Appearance, meaning 98-99% can't be prosecuted. Why? That is because just having dashcam record most often (98-99% of the time) is not sufficient evidence.

Yes in my case it was accident which caused damage to me personally, so obviously I was willing to attend the court, but I feel CPS made multiple procedural errors in the way they handled the case.

As I said, video captured by public is not great evidence, if there is solid case against suspect then video is just a cherry on the top, but if there is no cake to begin with, then there is no point in having the cherry 🙂 

Where dashcam works however, is in opposite way - proving that you were not at fault (as per LenT example, and I had 2 incidents like that myself). So if in the case I mentioned above, the other driver would have stopped and accused me of being at fault, I would have won the case with ease. But the other driver didn't bother stopping and made it very difficult to prove it the other way around. 

The lesson I have learned in this case - don't bother with police, because they are useless unless there are injuries. What I should have done, I should have gone straight to claims management company, because it was clearly non-fault case... and they would have simply taken all the damages from Third Party insurer. Police just wasted my time and then buried the case in their incompetence. 

[LenT]

2 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

Based on what I have learnt from your post I will be now considering dash cams for our cars.

My work is done!  ☺️

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

But if you take video of people speeding (in particular) or even driving through the red light...

As ever, you raise interesting points Linus.  However, the last submitted clip on the Dorset Cop Show video is, as it happens, of a driver in Bournemouth deciding that the red lights didn't apply to them.

This resulted in them being traced and opting for the 'Driver Education Course' penalty.  So not a fine and points this time, but if there's a next time....

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

The information provided above just goes to prove what I am saying. 1-2% results in Court Appearance, meaning 98-99% can't be prosecuted. Why? That is because just having dashcam record most often (98-99% of the time) is not sufficient evidence.

I think that this is a case where the bare stat can be misleading.  For one thing, we don't know how many videos have been submitted.  And as Phil pointed out earlier, it shouldn't be taken to imply that 98% got away with it.

Many culprits, when faced with video evidence, will perhaps wisely simply accept a fine or a Driver Education Course penalty.  It may be that the witness is, for many reasons, unable to support the evidence they submitted with a personal court appearance.

I also suggest that the increasing use of videos, such as the Dorset one, and press reports highlighting the use of dashcam videos to prosecute offenders, is going to gradually extend their acceptance in Courts.

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

However, if you just submit the video to police, the timestamp on the video invalidates it right away - simply because there is no way to prove the time stamp is correct and if time is not correct, then evidence is not valid.

I would have thought exactly that myself,  until I read this on the Nextbase FAQ page...

DO I NEED TO HAVE A DATE/TIME STAMP ON MY VIDEO FOOTAGE? IF SO, MUST THIS BE EXACTLY RIGHT?
Ideally the date and time would be correct, but don’t forget that the video footage is used to support your written witness statement.  If the time/date stamp in your video is incorrect, it is not an issue provided you refer to this in your statement.

For example, 'The date and time displayed in the video/photograph is incorrect.  This incident happened at 3pm on Thursday 12th April 2018'.

Ultimately, I expect, it may also be supported by evidence given in person.

[Linas.P]

I think you missing the point. Yes if offender voluntary admits to the charges it is all great. They may as well go to police themselves and surrender, you actually don't even need video in that case.  So the Dorset show video just shows occasion of somebody admitting it without challenging it.

Regarding your second point - again, it is has part of truth in it, if offender admits the offence it may not need to go to court. But at the same time you are wrong - it says in only 1-2% cases the witness attendance was needed, not that witnesses only attended in 1-2% of times.

Now I take your point, majority of public have no legal knowledge and police will pretend in the interview that they have valid evidence against them, which is not at all the case. Don't forget police is legally allowed to lie to obtain the evidence and that is what they do to scare people with video which is meaningless. If they get admission this way then all is great, but if culprit wisely say "bugger off with this crap" then it takes police nowhere, because that video in itself proves nothing, it is not valid evidence, because the dates and times on it can't be validated.

Final point, and the quote from nextbase FAQ is total BS. You can say anything you like on your witness statement, but what you say there is literally your word against word of the suspect. If you say that time stamp on your video is incorrect, then congratulations - you have just made your video invalid! Any half-sane lawyer will use that to dismiss the evidence, the defence in this case is extremely simple "the witness alleges that I was in location X on the time Y, but I was not in that location and the date/time on the video is incorrect, or does not match with the date on witness statement" - end of story, you case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, because it can't prove that defender was there at the time/date you allege. Maybe it actually happened, week, month, year before or after and the car was owned by different person at the time?! They have committed the offence in the car in your video, but without valid date/time it can't be enforced. If you have actual person who can be easily identified in the video then it is much easier, but if you have just a car  then it is next to impossible. Don't forget that RTA does not apply here, so there is no such thing as car keeper having to give you the information of who was driving the car. They can simply say - it wasn't me and it is CPS job to prove otherwise (presumption of innocence)... it is hard enough to prove it using evidence provided by public, but it is completely impossible to prove it evidence itself contain such inaccuracies as time/date being invalid or not present.

In short using dashcam footage to police the streets is very optimistic, it may work if you get onto fool and they just admit to everything, but as soon as it is challenged it is very difficult to prove in court. The standard for proving criminal offence is very high and dashcam footage is simply not enough. 

[doog442]

Sigh. There's no requirement under CPS guidelines to have time or dates on videos and if these aren't present it doesn't Invalidate it, its not thrown out and the sky doesn't fall in. The courts accept its impossible to always have an accurate time / date stamp on footage. I know some Police Forces say ideally you should have it on a dash cam but its not a deal breaker in any way, shape or form as long as you can account for the discrepancy as pointed out by Len.  The primary evidence is what you saw with your eyes, the video simply supports it.None of us have a time / date stamp in our memory and witness statements aren't Invalidated simply because you got the time wrong, the same with footage. 

You basically need to prove continuity with video evidence which is done by way of a statement. 

In other words the approx time you started your car (and the dashcam started filming), the description of the Incident itself with time / day / date /place in other words what you witnessed. The time you concluded your journey and the time / date you downloaded the footage .The footage (in whatever format) is produced as an exhibit. 

The Police will (if they decide to investigate) send a Notice of Intended prosecution (NIP) and Requirement for name and address of the driver under S172 of the Road Traffic Act. 

The owner has to respond, if he says he was driver at the alleged time of the Incident then that's evidential in itself, as well as the video and statement of the witness. Quite compelling I would argue dependant on the nature of the offence. 

 

[LenT]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

So the Dorset show video just shows occasion of somebody admitting it without challenging it.

That was possibly the last one of ten – the driver who opted for the ‘Naughty Course’.

I think you’ll find that the previous nine were all convictions that resulted in fines. Now whether they contested the accusation or not is rather irrelevant, because it was the production of the video evidence that ensured the conviction.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">...because that video in itself proves nothing, it is not valid evidence, because the dates and times on it can't be validated. ...apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">and the quote from nextbase FAQ is total BS. 

Perhaps I should first establish that, certainly as far as my BlackVues have been concerned, the date, time and global positioning have always been unerringly accurate. So if that’s a problem, then the answer may be to get a better dashcam!

The problem I have here, Linus, is that search though I may I cannot find an authoritative statement that supports your contention that the Nextbase quote is BS! Maybe you can.

This is a response to that same question by a Dave Yorke - an ex-Merseyside motorcycle police sergeant and Tactical Pursuit Advisor – for an article for a motorcyclists website.

Does footage have to have the correct time and date on it, or can you use a GoPro?

A time and date stamp isn’t important as you’ll be making a statement around the details of the events anyway, so you can cover any changes in there. That means it doesn’t have to be dash-cam footage that gets sent in; any footage from any equipment – like a GoPro or other action camera – is fine.

You can view the original article here:

Can you be prosecuted from dash-cam footage? Legal FAQ (bennetts.co.uk)

Having typed the above. I see that Doog has provided a much better reply anyway!

Now to refer to this quote again:

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">The information provided above just goes to prove what I am saying. 1-2% results in Court Appearance, meaning 98-99% can't be prosecuted. Why? That is because just having dashcam record most often (98-99% of the time) is not sufficient evidence.

I thought I’d try to find out how many actual prosecutions have been successfully made with the assistance of video evidence. Again this is just a few minutes of trawling through media reports.

1.

A cyclist filed 213 dangerous driving reports to the police in the last two years. All were recorded on video thanks to the use of his bicycle-mounted camera, or “bikecam.” 133 of these incidents resulted in police action, with 22 drivers being sent on driving safety courses, 23 being fined, and 25 ending up in court.

You can read the report here:

Dangerous Driving Convictions Soar Via Video Uploads To Police (forbes.com)

2.

As many as 89 dashcam video recordings of alleged motoring offences were submitted to police forces every day in 2019, according to data analysed by the RAC.

A total of 32,370 pieces of footage were received by 24 police forces that accept video evidence of driving offences from members of the public, double the number recorded in 2018 (15,159).

Data from the RAC’s freedom of information request also shows that a quarter of these (25% – 8,148) went on to result in prosecutions.

Police forces, according to the study, are making it increasingly easy for drivers and other road users to submit camera footage of unsuspecting alleged rule-breakers, with all of Britain’s 44 forces now accepting dashcam video, and the vast majority online via their websites.

Read the article here:

Dashcam evidence a ‘game changer’ for enforcement, says RAC | Fleet industry news (fleetnews.co.uk)

3.

Dated 20/10/20:

The National Dash Cam Safety Portal, which allows motorists to quickly and securely upload footage of dangerous driving to the relevant police authority, is now being used by 33 forces, which have collectively received 21,324 uploads in total since 2018, when it was launched. 

Saving on average eight hours per case, Nextbase estimates that the platform has saved these forces at least 170,000 hours – the equivalent of more than 20 years' of police time.

By using the NDCSP system, the public has assisted police in identifying, warning and prosecuting offenders nationwide, says Nextbase.

From court cases to awareness courses, or fixed penalty notices to warning letters, 52% of all cases have been taken further by the relevant force.

The fact that fewer than one in five cases have resulted in no further action (NFA), demonstrates the success of the platform in identifying the most severe of incidents and linking motorists with police in a bid to crack down on this behaviour, argues Nextbase.

Read the article here:

Drivers upload dashcam footage to police portal in record numbers | Fleet industry news (fleetnews.co.uk)

4.

27/11/2020

Road users have sent more than 50,000 dashcam recordings of potential traffic offices to police forces since 2017, with one-third resulting in action.

Police forces across the UK receive more than 35 pieces of footage every day, according to a freedom of information request sent to every UK constabulary by What Car?

Just over 10% of the incidents captured on film were severe enough to warrant a court prosecution and 9.6% resulted in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN).

A further 10.5% resulted in the driver being asked to attend a driver awareness course, and 3.0% of drivers were given a warning.

The use of dashcams by drivers and other road users has increased by around 850% since 2017, when insurance companies started accepting footage as evidence for claims and the courts first used footage to convict an offender.

The What Car? research found Dyfed-Powys Police in South Wales is the most active in using dash cam footage.

It has taken action over 81.3% of the videos it’s received, with 40.2% of offenders receiving a warning, 18.6% of them were prosecuted in court and 18.4% were asked to attend a driver awareness course, while just 4.0% were handed an FPN.

London’s Metropolitan Police received the largest volume of submissions – nearly 25,000 videos over four years – and acted in 45.4% of cases, issuing court proceedings to 18.9% of offenders, driver awareness courses to 13.9%, FPNs to 9.6% and warnings to 2.9%.

Again, the full article here:

More than 50,000 dashcam videos sent to police | Fleet industry news (fleetnews.co.uk)

My apologies if this is a tedious and long-winded way of getting this information down, but it seems to me that with only a little investigation, it's clear that the UK's police forces are embracing the use of dashcams and securing more successful results than some of the initial figures presented in this thread might suggest.

 

[doog442]

An excellent piece of research @LenTand thanks for having the patience to write a clear and concise summary with links to back it up. My speciality (if you can call it that ) was covert video surveillance and the myriad of hoops one must jump through in that regard including RIPA (just don't go there :-)

Notwithstanding the study and examinations required to reach a certain rank certainly puts paid to the assertion by our learned friend Linas that 'the police have no clue about the law'...extremely insulting for those of us who  studied and passed several detailed examinations in 'evidence and procedure' amongst other chapters of brain jarring tyranny (Video footage is evidence as we all know)

Its refreshing to see that Police forces are utilising dash cam evidence (I'm long since retired) and any defence solicitor worth his salt should tell his client to just admit it if the evidence is blatantly obvious rather than look for technical reasons to buck the system. Luckily the courts are wise to it.  The bane of my life were the hard core of solicitors who would rather take a client to trial (and risk a much stiffer sentence) simply because it financially benefited the practice - and then tell them to admit it on the day.

That said if you genuinely believe you were Innocent then plead not guilty and let the magistrates view the evidence. Don't forget that if it reaches that stage it would have passed all of the necessary CPS criteria to offer a realistic prospect of conviction.