headcam evidence used against van driver

[cremedemonthe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-34569924

From what I have read, serves him right

 

[FfionWinnie]

Interesting the ROSPA guy doesn't think headcams will alter the behaviour of drivers. I don't see how it won't, as long as they know there is a camera on them.

 

[PeterNatt]

I would suggest that Nick Lloyd of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gets in contact with the Safety department of the BHS as their statistics on riding accidents are probably more accurate. See www.horseaccidents.org.uk where you can report incidents such as this and provides the BHS with more accurate statistics on the size of the problem which they can use when talking to central and local government.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

That's interesting. I was told by a West Yorkshire police officer last year when I tried to report an incident that headcam footage would not be admissible in court in cases like this.

 

[cremedemonthe]

That's interesting. I was told by a West Yorkshire police officer last year when I tried to report an incident that headcam footage would not be admissible in court in cases like this.

Easy way out isn't it?
Some of my customers have said the same thing about other forces around the country but I think you'll find that camera evidence such as above IS admissible, cameras don't lie.
I can see no reason why this sort of evidence as long as it's clear what is going on, can't be used to prosecute the offenders, after all, what's the point of having them if it isn't?
I have used dash cam evidence against stupid risk taking drivers performing illegal manoeuvres on the road and the police were more than interested , they came to my house to view the footage and went off after the driver so it can be used in some cases. I think your police force were telling you porkies, pursue it next time if there is a next time if I were you.
Oz

 

[Goldenstar]

Interesting the ROSPA guy doesn't think headcams will alter the behaviour of drivers. I don't see how it won't, as long as they know there is a camera on them.

That's the thing would they notice you had a head cam on .
There's no doult hi viz stuff slows drivers down I recently got some cheapy red flashing LEDs which we wear on our arms and on the tail pieces of the hi viz sheets .
They look ridiculous but boy does that slow the drivers down .
But not a lot will stop a true prat behaving like that van driver .

 

[Goldenstar]

That's interesting. I was told by a West Yorkshire police officer last year when I tried to report an incident that headcam footage would not be admissible in court in cases like this.

If you have time and want a little stir write and tell your Mp about your experience.

 

[fatpiggy]

That's interesting. I was told by a West Yorkshire police officer last year when I tried to report an incident that headcam footage would not be admissible in court in cases like this.

There was an article in one of my cycling magazines not so long ago about the hoops a cyclist had to go through to get the driver that knocked him off his bike, into court. He had a helmet cam and the police told him that the footage would be inadmissible since he "might have digitally altered it". He did manage to reverse this in the end and I think he won his case - given that he was himself a LAWYER, it doesn't bode well for us mere mortals. Basically the police really don't want to know and are happy to tell all concerned not to be so naughty in future, and close the case. Much less hassle and work for them I suppose.

 

[ossy]

I think the fact the driver had his mobile phone in hand while doing the manouver is properly the main reason this got put through.

 

[cremedemonthe]

There was an article in one of my cycling magazines not so long ago about the hoops a cyclist had to go through to get the driver that knocked him off his bike, into court. He had a helmet cam and the police told him that the footage would be inadmissible since he "might have digitally altered it". He did manage to reverse this in the end and I think he won his case - given that he was himself a LAWYER, it doesn't bode well for us mere mortals. Basically the police really don't want to know and are happy to tell all concerned not to be so naughty in future, and close the case. Much less hassle and work for them I suppose.

Good point but then , every criminal that's ever been caught on cctv and the like could use the same argument in court to get it thrown out couldn't they?

 

[FfionWinnie]

That's the thing would they notice you had a head cam on .
There's no doult hi viz stuff slows drivers down I recently got some cheapy red flashing LEDs which we wear on our arms and on the tail pieces of the hi viz sheets .
They look ridiculous but boy does that slow the drivers down .
But not a lot will stop a true prat behaving like that van driver .

My hi viz has a pic of a camera and says smile you're on camera. So does the tail sleeve

Buddy's mum it is admissible in court.

 

[fatpiggy]

Good point but then , every criminal that's ever been caught on cctv and the like could use the same argument in court to get it thrown out couldn't they?

Not really as the CCTV footage will only be accepted if there are signs up saying that the camera is there. A person wearing a headcam is not wearing a warning sign and you could argue that it is potentially in the interest of the filmer to alter the evidence to suit themselves. We had a thief at work and a covert camera was put up to prove that the likely suspect was indeed the thief (and he was!) but the footage could not be used in the case for dismissal as there were no warning signs.

 

[cremedemonthe]

Not really as the CCTV footage will only be accepted if there are signs up saying that the camera is there. A person wearing a headcam is not wearing a warning sign and you could argue that it is potentially in the interest of the filmer to alter the evidence to suit themselves. We had a thief at work and a covert camera was put up to prove that the likely suspect was indeed the thief (and he was!) but the footage could not be used in the case for dismissal as there were no warning signs.

I agree with some of this but not all.
When I reported the driver caught on my dashcam for an illegal manoeuvre, they viewed the footage and went after the driver with a ticket.
If the driver contested it then I don't know what the police would do as I had no warning sign on my van that anyone was being filmed so by what you are saying, it would not be admissable in court?
Secondly, some headcam riders do have warnings that the drivers are being filmed placed on their hi viz tabbards, therefore by your own words it would be admissible in court.
It would be interesting to know if the rider in the film above had such a warning or not.

 

[Queenbee]

Interesting the ROSPA guy doesn't think headcams will alter the behaviour of drivers. I don't see how it won't, as long as they know there is a camera on them.

I understand where he is coming from, its not so easy for a driver to spot a head cam on a riders helmet... I doubt that they are particularly looking out for one in the first place. What it would mean though, is that even if driver behaviour is not altered, the possibility of repercussions and successful prosecutions would increase, and that itself would perhaps eventually trickle down and become the deterrent, I can only see the use of headcams as a good thing

 

[EmmasMummy]

Not really as the CCTV footage will only be accepted if there are signs up saying that the camera is there. A person wearing a headcam is not wearing a warning sign and you could argue that it is potentially in the interest of the filmer to alter the evidence to suit themselves. We had a thief at work and a covert camera was put up to prove that the likely suspect was indeed the thief (and he was!) but the footage could not be used in the case for dismissal as there were no warning signs.

I was told that if I got camera footage of my accident (van drove into my car coming off a roundabout ) then that was proof. But there were no signs up, but the police said that if the video showed signs of dangerous driving he could be charged. Never got the footage in the end as they would only give it to the insurance company, and they kept 'missing their calls'.......................nothing to do with the fact that they company the can was from supplied the bar that had the camera.....