LenT

Personally I have never found it a problem to make a note of the total mileage when dropping the car off at my (excellent) local Lexus dealer. Or when they have come to collect it. After all, it’s right there on the dash in front of me. But if you feel that you need an unarguable record, then your move to take a timed and dated photo of the dash is the answer. Perhaps good advice for others, too.

Very wise, David. The Lexus sat nav is, sadly, a pain to use, expensive to update and, I believe, only revised every two years anyway. When I checked my system I think it was no longer supported in any case. But I had long ago lost interest as I use my Garmin, which has four free updates every year. It’s really the only feature of my IS that is a disappointment. Otherwise, it’s been a delight - as I’m sure you’ll discover.

I suspect that if you knew a good local body shop, you would have gone that route already. My suggestion is to see if you have a local ChipsAway operator. I’ve used one for alloy wheel repairs - with excellent results. They do have some Centres but mainly it’s individual mobile operators - so I guess it’s possible that a lot will be down to the skill of that particular individual, However, they do offer free estimates. And they come to you. So nothing to lose by checking them out. It’s ChipsAway.co.uk

The IS manuals on the Lexus.co.uk website only seem to go back as far as 2011. But they do confirm the use of 5W - 30 for those engines. If the car was sold and serviced by a Lexus dealer, then it’s possible that if you go to the Lexus site and sign in to the My Lexus section, you may find that all the service history is recorded there. All the best with it!

The couple concerned became - and remain - very good friends. And it was indeed a 'stately pile' which played a very secret and significant role in WWll - but I may have said too much already! We lived there for about 20 years and then moved about twenty years ago. But they were good times!

What I’ve discovered, Phil, is a whole new world of speed bumps! For about £15 + VAT you can have your very own - and pick from 5, 10 or 15mph versions. https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/traffic-management-c1220/speed-bumps-flow-plates-c1098?gbraid=0AAAAADyUWgEi_nrFZOYi7wQ930vtH--Cy&ppc_keyword=speed humps&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl_SHBhCQARIsAFIFRVUTzDxS2x_uk2TbAWJ4KgZp5KzoH-tzjHUDzJH1l_l4sz9HvrobKJIaAmIHEALw_wcB But as I discovered, for the emergency services it was the extreme 100mm vertical displacement bumps that gave them the hump! The cushion type, not so much. But I can empathise with them My wife has a small Suzuki 4x4 and treats our local humps with disdain. Which is why we’ve had to replace two broken coil springs in the years we’ve had it. At our last place we had a long drive shared with our neighbours, which had had bumps built in to it. They were not generally a problem, until a new couple moved in with a Ferrari on a trailer. It was only when the owner tried to drive it down the drive that he discovered the front axle went over the first hump - and the rest of the car stopped on top of it! I was out at the time, so missed all the drama. Sadly, although he managed to get it back to his garage, it only left the house once more - again on a trailer when it was sold.

Thank you for this additional information Linas. It’s always useful to know the source material for any claim. As it happens, I think I can add a bit more background to this. The claim that ‘more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone’ surfaced in early 2003 and was widely publicised., It was not actually a study by the London Ambulance Service but a statement attributed to the then Chairman, Sigurd Reinton. As you have demonstrated, this was then extrapolated into the numbers you describe. However, Reinton denied that he had ever made such a statement! He made this clear when he appeared before the London Transport Committee on 11th December 2003. Here are some extracts from the Minutes of that Meeting: (My emphasis added) Lynne Featherstone (Chair): ….it would seem, given the balance, the Ambulance Service is saying that lives are lost because of the delay. It was quoted in the papers that 500 lives are lost a year because of traffic calming. Sigurd Reinton, Chair, LAS: Can I just be absolutely clear on that? I am being accused of saying that lives are lost, when in fact I said lives might be lost. I would like to see some proper research… Lynne Featherstone (Chair): I stand corrected. But I read the newspapers, what can I say? There is a contradiction here with TfL who do not necessarily accept that. They put something like three seconds per hump, I believe, as their delay factor. ... Are you saying that you actually are objecting to the traffic calming in what we generally would understand as residential areas? Sigurd Reinton, Chair, LAS: I am not quite saying that. I am saying that when schemes are being considered it is very important to weigh up all the pros and cons. Where, for example, you have either an ambulance station located in a residential area, or where we know from our records that there are high instances of calls, it may be that if you look at the likely effects on our response times, and the likely benefits of traffic calming, the local authority, after weighing the two up, may well come to the view in many cases that the number of lives saved by the traffic calming scheme is not large enough. I do want to emphasise this because we are being somewhat misquoted on this. We are not saying that all traffic calming is bad. We are saying, as I said in my introductory statement, that we have to recognise that there are two public goods here that compete with one another. We need to strike a good balance. And later on…. Jenny Jones (Assembly Member😞 Mr Reinton, we have had some correspondence about the figure of 500 deaths caused by road humps a year. You have been quoted in the newspapers as saying that, but in the correspondence that we have had, you appear not to be saying that. Is that true – that you have not said that road humps cause 500 deaths per year? Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Was this not clarified earlier? Jenny Jones (AM): Not really. The evidence we have had here from the London Ambulance Service does not actually say that. It says something different. I would just like clarity on that. Sigurd Reinton, Chair of LAS: I have here in front of me, Jenny , a copy of a letter I sent to you. In case you do not have it, I can give you another copy. It addresses your displeasure at the suggestion that maybe more lives are being lost. It says here that ‘traffic calming seems to have worked in that, over the last 20 years, road speeds have fallen from anywhere between 7-28%, depending where in London and what time. But road deaths have risen which is not what you would expect.’ ‘And the LAS,’ and this is the crucial part, ‘could save many more lives if the roads were flowing better.’ By way of illustrating this latter point, I have said that ‘a minute saved on average, in getting to the 8,000 or so cardiac arrests that we are called to, might save 500 lives a year.’ That is the number that was quoted. I am not going to, frankly, go to the stakes about whether the number is 500, 300, 600 or anything else, not least because, in any event, this only refers to people who have suffered cardiac arrest. They are a fraction of the total number of people with immediately life-threatening conditions. Jenny Jones (AM): So you have never said that road humps cause 500 deaths? Sigurd Reinton, Chair LAS: I do not recall saying that, no. Lynne Featherstone (Chair): But the principle of them taking longer has to be accepted that… Jenny Jones (AM): No, Chair, I am actually making a very important point here. We have this urban myth that the London Ambulance Service has said that they could save 500 lives a year if there were no road humps. This has now become a completely unsubstantiated myth. Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Which he has dispelled today quite clearly. Jenny Jones (AM): That is wonderful. Thank you very much. The traffic calming measures the Fire Brigade and LAS were particularly exercised about were the speed humps with vertical deflections of about 100mm. When they were reduced in Hull to 75mm, they found these ‘acceptable’. Similarly speed cushions as opposed to humps were more acceptable. Traffic calming measures such as width restrictions and chicanes were also better tolerated by the emergency services. Now the Meeting was much more nuanced than I’ve been able to demonstrate here. That would obviously stray into TLDR territory...if it hasn’t already! But I thought it worthwhile to establish that the cited conclusion – that the LAS had produced a study proving an estimate of the potential lives lost through traffic calming - was, in the words of Jenny Jones, an unsubstantiated myth. It also has to be considered that the benefits of ‘traffic calming’ - death and accident reduction, reduced pollution levels, improved environment and such like - are not estimates but based on actual data. I would finally add that this all dates back to 2003. I suspect that developments in ambulances, paramedic training and resources, road calming measures and the like will also have improved matters. Clearly there are merits to all the arguments. But I think they are better made if soundly founded. For anyone wanting to read the Minutes, here’s the link: Appendix A (london.gov.uk)

Just my curiosity Linus, but I'd be interested to know in what way this claim is actually 'proven'. To claim that 'the combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save' seems rather counter intuitive to me. After all, if you apply the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to the argument and eliminate all traffic then you would expect to eliminate all traffic related accidents! Indeed, this very effect is demonstrated by the use LTNs.

Not too sure what this means, but if it's my last post to which you refer, than you seem to have responded, so that's OK. 🙂 With respect Linus, I think you made several arguments, some with which I agree. As I - and others - have made very clear, no prosecution can be based only on dashcam footage. The police video submission forms also make this very clear! Both. I c&p what I think are relevant points and then provide a link to the full article so that anyone interested can check the provenance of the source and be assured that I haven't cherry picked - or data mined, as we say - the contents. I drew the line at four items, but there seems to be no shortage of material. This was simply the first of such cyclist and motorcyclist reports I came across. I believe there are many of them. I've no idea if he is a 'maniac' or not, but I couldn't really see any 'provocation' in the clips available. But in any case, the Police make it very clear that videos are submitted on the clear understanding that both parties are liable to prosecution if shown to be committing an offence. I guess 'provocation' would come into that category. This exasperated me too! And yet they all do it. I suspect that an application under the Freedom of Information Act might winkle out the conviction details. However, I think there are some logical assumptions that can be made. Firstly, simply being taken to Court will be a wake up call for many motorists and, when faced with the corroborated video evidence, they may decide to take the invariably cheaper option and 'fess up' as I believe the phrase is. Secondly, if the Police and the CPS were getting a significant failure rate then they probably would stop doing it. Let's take a closer look at one example I gave earlier: OK, So we learn that 18.6% of offenders identified by video were prosecuted, but we don't know the success rate. Nevertheless, it shows that the corroborated videos were effective at initiating Court action, which is what has been a subject of contention. And it is not unreasonable to assume that the majority will lead to guilty pleas or convictions. But equally we glean that the video submissions resulted in a further 62.6% of offenders being - at the very least - inconvenienced by their careless road use and hopefully becoming more aware of their conduct and the risk of greater penalties for future transgressions. Not a bad result, surely? Speaking of the Gwent and South Wales force, I see that on their website there are three example of dashcam aided prosecutions that resulted in convictions. Much like the Dorset police link I supplied earlier, I suspect there may be many more... GoSafe - Snapped! Yes, that's what I and others have been saying. Absolutely. That's why submitters of video evidence have to accept that they may have to appear in Court if it's contested. If taken literally, that is an offence! But it is too often forgotten that all citizens have a civic duty to report acts of criminal activity. That is, unless they condone acts of terrorism, rape, assault, car theft, catalytic converter abductions and so on. Oh dear. And there I was thinking we were now finally agreeing that it was both admissible and good evidence - within the strictures applied, of course. A result then! Think of all the Court and Police time that saves. And all because they were 'Caught On Camera' (Good title for a TV show, that) PS. Linas, my apologies for taking a while to respond. This is the second version. I was just finessing my first attempt - and lost the whole darn lot!!

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. ...because that video in itself proves nothing, it is not valid evidence, because the dates and times on it can't be validated. ...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: 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.

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.... 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. 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.

My work is done! ☺️

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/

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.

Somehow I don’t think that it’s I who should be worried Brian. Would you, by any chance be recently retired or otherwise have time on your hands? Has he been suggesting ways of keeping you busy? Still, I think you only have to suspect his motives if he mentions that his car could do with a good clean! Oh, you say he just has….🙄

And who wouldn’t? It stands to reason, as they say. And of course to some extent that’s what happens. Except, as the link I gave demonstrates, that’s not the most effective way of doing it. I did read somewhere that snow foam was actually developed for use in cleaning the likes of muddy farm equipment. I suspect it’s because snow foam contains wetting agents or surfactants that reduce the surface tension of the water and allow the molecules to penetrate surface muck more effectively. You could say it makes water wetter!

I’m with you there Brian - although really by default. Little did I know when I thought that as we weren’t driving anywhere, I’d spend the money I was saving on Detailing & Ceramic Coating, that I’d end up doing more car washing, not less! No longer can I run the motor through the local car wash! My Karcher, which was bought for car washing, patio cleaning and neighbour lending, now just does patios and neighbours. The snow foam gun does perfectly well on a standard hose, which is also fine for rinsing down. But at least that saves setting up the Karcher. Like you, I’ve invested in all the other associated paraphernalia. But I certainly shan’t be bothering with those dual-action polishers and hot air dryers….probably!

Having had mine ‘detailed’ some time ago, I am now committed to the snow foam / two bucket palaver. One question as a newbie to this method is: a) to first snow foam, leave for 10 - 15 minutes and then rinse b) rinse and then snow foam. And then rinse. As an old-fashioned car washer, I’ve instinctively gone with b. And there’s many as agree. But those who make snow foam disagree - as do professional detailers. They claim that putting on a layer of water first prevents the snow foam from getting at the road dirt / dust and doing its stuff. So who’s right- and does it even matter? Clearly, as Harry Hill used to say, there’s only one way to resolve this dilemma…. http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=241248

Just one point I’d like to make about dashcams, as no-one else has. In regular use you should reformat the SD Card every two to three weeks. This is to ensure that any Protected Files don’t build up and reduce the capacity of the Card. It also serves to remove any files that have been corrupted by copying errors as a result of being constantly rewritten. Before reformatting, any files that you want to save should be copied to another device.

Now there’s a great throwaway line!

Just a small point about dashcams that I don’t think has been mentioned: It’s important to reformat the SD Card every two to three weeks in regular use. This not only removes old files but also protected files that have been saved and are reducing the card’s capacity. It also removes errors that may have been introduced through constant overwriting of files. Any protected files that have been saved should first be copied to another device if you still wish to keep them..

I think we may have been shown the first car before. Or something very like it. It can surely only be anyone’s ’daily driver’ as long as they don’t encounter a speed bump. At which point I think it’ll get the kind of nose job that even a prop forward would admire!

I’m very tempted to agree with you, Tariq, were it not for the fact that I have no idea what ‘someone vip/doing a big body to their LS400’ actually means. Any chance you can be more specific?

I agree with some of your post, Doog. There can be no doubt that the scrap merchants handing over cash to buy a truckload of sawn off catalytic converters can have any doubt about how they were obtained. Marking these items is only effective if the merchant is caught with them on the premises. But that only has to happen once to form the basis of a case against them. Which I suggest makes it worthwhile. As for the warning sticker, I'd compare it to fitting a dummy burglar alarm box to the outside of your house. A casual passing chummy may or may not think it's real, but may be more inclined to try the place next door - which doesn't have one. But in any case, the converter thieves cruising around for a target are looking for a specific make and model. These aren't random attacks. So they spot their victim long before they clock the warning sticker. Whether knowing it may be marked is a deterrent or not probably depends on how likely they are to be caught in possession. Or the scrap dealer to refuse to handle it. Now we may all agree that both events are unlikely, but as I say...it only has to pay off the once. Being in possession of a large number of old, sawn off converters is not a criminal offence. Being in possession of one associated with a recent theft, is. So on balance, I suggest the cost and effort of marking is worthwhile.

Yes, John. Precisely that. This was some years ago, but as I recall it, that dealership was handing over three cars so they all had the reg letters identifying Leicester, but different numbers. Our etched number not only didn’t match our reg plate - it didn’t match the other two either! So the possibility that our etched number was also the reg number of one of the other two didn’t seem to apply. Where the etched number came from, they never told me! The reg number correctly identified the car. As I recall, the etched number didn’t actually identify anything! PS. It has also occurred to me that it was the Salesman drawing my attention to the etched glass, on account of it being a valuable complimentary offering, that prompted me to actually check - something neither he nor anyone else in the dealership, had bothered to do. Which of course prompts the question of how effective this kind of security marking really is. Probably worth having if it’s complimentary. And possibly a deterrent to any thief not wanting to risk having to replace all the glass.