UKH

(A name for a contrived new route off Heather Terrace?)

I bought my son, for one of his presents, a dash-cam recording device for Christmas, and knew that he may say that he didn't want it. Indeed that is what he said, and was not offended, as he thought about it quite a bit first. So I may well take it back to the shop. 

A couple of days after, my son said that he did not want the dash-cam, I suddenly thought that possibly I should consider having it. So my question is:-

Is a dash-cam as much a liability, as it is a help in revisiting what happened with any particular, recorded incident?

Could your own recording device be used by the police to look at a marginal speeding situation, for instance?

(The more that I think about this, the more I think that I will just take it back).

Personally I think they are great. Mine has parking mode, and saved me a lot of money when someone reversed into my car and drove off without leaving any details. And later denied they'd been there on the date in question. Bet the insurance company enjoyed that claim. 

It also captured footage of a car vs pedestrian incident in the opposite lane which the police found quite useful. The pedestrian was extremely lucky.

Paul

I see no problems with dash cams, but the dash cam warriors are total a$$holes.

Last year someone pulled out of a side road into the side of my van (red and van shaped, hard to miss). He said he had a dash cam so it wasn't his fault. The insurance companies didn't agree...

Really wish I had a copy of the footage though

I think they are useful. An unintended effect for me was having one probably made me drive a bit more carefully. Remember if you're a bit of a lairy driver you could end up incriminating yourself.

A friend of mine works for an insurance company specialising in dash cams for lower premiums. The number of people who think having the cam totally excuses them if anything is laughable.

They are very useful, although I don't personally use one, but be aware that if you hand over footage there is a chance that one or both insurance companies will check the rest of the video to see how you were driving before hand. It's often buried in the small print that you have to hand over the whole memory card / upload if requested.

I have one in my van, 99% of the time it sits there unnoticed and does its thing, hidden behind the rear view mirror. On the one near miss I have had I went back through the footage afterwards to see if I missed anything or could/should have done anything differently. Watching it back I possibly should have scrubbed a bit more speed off before the corner, but it was a double solid white line in the middle so didn't expect to see a car on the wrong side over taking.

My daughter didn't want the one her dad bought for her until a few months later when white van man tried (unsuccessfully) to arrange for her to crash in to him at a roundabout. We have turned off sound recording though.

This is the sort of reply that I was wondering about. Is it a legal requirement to always hand over recorded Dash-cam material? 

How readily can you truly delete video runs, and can you remove some, whilst leaving other material?

How quickly can you expect the machine to turn on, if you realise that it would be sensible to have it on?

No idea about the legal point of view but if you buy insurance on the proviso of having a dash cam it's likely to be voided if you can't produce the footage.

Apparently:

“While dash cam footage can be used in court to prove which drivers are at fault, don't forget that it can also be used against you if you're found to be the driver at fault. And you can't simply refuse to share the footage should legal action be brought against you; the police are legally allowed to seize your dash cam for its footage.”

https://www.brindley.co.uk/news/should-you-buy-a-dash-cam-pros-and-cons-exp...

I had a chat with my police officer cousin about dash cams, back when we were both bikers. He would never get one himself, and put me off doing so, because he said that if you ever were in an accident any earlier footage could (and would) be viewed and taken into account. 

If its one of those that you stick to the windscreen, make sure you don't forget to remove it and stow it out of sight when you park up.

I forgot once in Blackpool zoo and came back to a smashed passenger window and a missing camera. £50 excess on my insurance to get it fixed. The bloody camera only cost £25 from amazon. 

But that's only a problem of you drive dangerously , surely?  I try not to, and so I don't think I'd have a problem with my last xx hours of driving being scrutinised. Might be embarrassed if any of my singalongs could be heard, mind. 

I had a police officer threaten me with a Section 5 public order offence and label me a criminal, after I submitted helmet-camera footage of a very deliberate and dangerous close pass on my bike, because I could be heard swearing loudly in the footage.

He also claimed the driver couldn't be held responsible for attacking me because at some later point in the submitted footage, I chose not to use a substandard cycle lane.

I guess it depends on what force you submit the footage to, the specific officer who deals with it and whether they can be bothered on that particular day or just want to find an excuse for taking no action. Probably quite unlikely they'll do you for anything. Insurers may be interested though as well. I would suggest not submitting entire journeys, only bits that are directly relevant to a given incident.

Certainly to the police. Not sure about insurance companies.

Mine saves it as a series of files, (set to record in 3 minute segments) on an SD card. You can delete invidual files, all of them or format the card after every journey if you're really paranoid. On mine if it detects an impact (or slamming the car door) it starts to record onto a read only file.

I've wired mine to come on when I turn on the ignition (or it turns on and runs on battery if something hits the car while parked). Alternatively it plugs into a lighter socket, and again comes on when the ignition is on. Driving round and turning it on and off just isn't practicable.

I've sent footage to my insurance company once (and very useful it was too). I just had to send the relevant file that contained the accident footage. They weren't remotely interested in forensically examining the dashcam for incriminating evidence.

Unless you regularly drive dangerously, or are involved in a serious accident, I don't think the police are going to randomly seize your dashcam and sit through 80 hours of footage on the off chance you've parked on a double yellow during that time.

Not exactly earth shattering news 😉

Again, I'd have thought that was pretty obvious

That feels unnecessary. If you’re after Earth shattering discoveries I suspect a thread about dash cams is the wrong place to look. 

Apologies. That came across far more snarky than I'd intended.

Unfortunately not exactly unexpected - after all, far too many Police Officers (just like the main population) regard bicycles (and cyclists), along with those who use motorised two-wheeled vehicles as second class citizens.

It was a pity you didn't record his comments, and then made an official complaint to Senior Officers, accusing him of aiding and abetting a possible (probable ?) friend who was the driver in question.

I pushed a complaint against the officer as far as I reasonably could, with the help of a solicitor from Cycling UK. I received a formal apology from Avon and Somerset Police, but they didn't take any disciplinary action the cop, nor did they take action against the driver beyond a wrist slap.

What I found especially disappointing was the attitude that the roads are a free-for-all until someone is KSId. Pretty much every officer I spoke to was surprised that I was bothering to report an incident in which I wasn't even hit by the car. It reinforced for me that as a cyclist, you're very much on your own on the roads.

That Police Officer presumably now knows that his attitude is accepted - more's the pity.

I suspect I was probably feeling a little grouchy when I replied too… no hard feelings!

On the plus side, a local paper did give me an interview, which was then nicked by the Mail and the Sun who chose to publish the article with stills from my helmet footage of me flipping the bird at the knobhead who'd just nearly mowed me down. Possibly my proudest achievement to date.

One of the problems with dash cams is its too easy to delete footage.

A lot of the commercial ones are physically locked with only the company's transport manager having the key.

I have been considering putting them in our vans for a while now and some of the advertising info companies have sent me claim the footage can only be used in court if its from a secure camera but I suspect that's BS. 

Should change with the 2022 Highway Code updates, particularly with the “introducing a hierarchy of road users” from the consultation paper? If approved it could come into effect later this month. I’m sure it will cause more arguments in future for a long time unfortunately. 

Consultation paper link https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-i... .

Indeed. If properly explained, enforced and backed up by safe and usable infrastructure, the updates could vastly improve the situation.

Rule H3 in this is :-

"Laws TSRGD Schedule 14 part 1 and part 5 and HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Rule H3: Rule for drivers and motorcyclists

You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

approaching, passing or moving off from a junction

moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic

travelling around a roundabout”

End quote."

Why on earth does it require such an update to (hopefully) eliminate such stupidly dangerous driving in the first place ???

I’ve not read any Government final details, but a few articles “suggesting” what’s coming. They may not be accurate of course.

Maybe because if approved, cyclists would have priority over cars, etc., even if they undertake (which I heard would be allowed) slow moving vehicles? The “riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.” was suggested that, say, a car turning left would have to if necessary stop and wait for a bike going straight on to pass!!

I also read an article that suggested the last part - 

approaching, passing or moving off from a junction

moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic

travelling around a roundabout”

- was potentially much more complex with implications not immediately obvious. With the last part, a reporter said that apparently on roundabouts the advised route for bikes would be around the outside (a bit like the Dutch system??) so any vehicles exiting would have to give way to any cyclists going around the outside of roundabout past the vehicle’s exit.

Time will tell what all the details will be, but care will certainly need to be taken by all road user in future. I can envisage much confusion for the foreseeable future unfortunately and hope some layman type advertising is done.

I maybe imaging stuff, but the boys in blue take serious umberidge about being filmed/photographed when going about their business.

Cue: offduty 😄😄😄

As I have said before on here, and to which off-duty did wholeheartedly agreed at the time, the Police would have far fewer problems regarding trust if they all wore bodycams which were operating ALL of the time.

The fact that some members of the Police do not like being filmed says more about the likelihood that these individuals can be trusted than anything else.

I can see what you did there.

I'm not sure I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the suggestion that body cams operate 24/7. There is a right to privacy even at work, and just as in any other bluelight emergency services there will undoubtedly be unprofessional conversations or banter that goes on amongst colleagues.

Custody offices are subject to 24/7 audio and video CCTV but I can't think of many other work environments like that.

Certainly bodyworn has been demonstrated to massively reduce the kind of nonsense complaints that used to be thrown about with abandon, and I've seen it used really effectively to pick out extra evidence and detail that hadn't been captured in a statement.

There are definitely disadvantages to bodycam footage that I did predict as it was rolled out, in that we are often in the situation where the view of the CPS can be that if it isn't captured on BWV it didn't happen.

I think there are some poor reactions to having a camera phone thrust in your face, particularly when you are trying to deal with something entirely unrelated, often in a high stress situation.  That being said there are also huge numbers of examples of officers basically ignoring the filmer and/or giving their details and just cracking on.

And many more are enthusiastic cyclists.

That's an interesting leap.

That would be tantamount to suicide, IMHO. I don't know what the Dutch have been smoking.

I didn't mean 24/7 - just when "on duty" and dealing with the public. Sorry if there was any confusion.

As for "having a camera phone thrust in your face" - well that's just plain bad manners at the very least, and depending on the situation should be regarded as inflammatory. No different to the way that the paparazzi rile up their victims, which I'm sure is a deliberate ploy. Such actions by anyone should be treated as overly aggressive and threatening, with any possible legal repercussions that might entail. There is however a world of difference between that scenario and someone filming at a respectable distance.

The trouble is, when an Officer refuses to deal with an incident, the victim starts to wonder what the rationale behind such inaction is - then all sorts of possible reasons come to mind. Now most, if not all of these are complete fiction - but unless matters are properly sorted, there will be a lingering question as to why, and the worst scenarios will have just as much "credence" as the most banal.

Reminds me of this infamous event: https://www.theblaze.com/news/uk-cop-blasts-journalist-documenting-womans-r...

"He then said Sgt. Gary Brown (3058U) got in his face and said he was "not authorized to go around videoing" before letting loose with some hollering: "You're killing people! Go home!"

Really?

We were a month in to some fairly draconian legislation to deal with a global pandemic and he was "citizen journalist" (aka some bloke with a smartphone) at a time when there were pretty severe restrictions on movements outside the home.

I think there are better examples of police poor behaviour around smartphone activity than that combination of circumstances.

The wording is very concerning to me from both a cyclist and car driver point of view. I can’t imagine any cyclist wanting to cycle around a multi lane roundabout. The speed of vehicles on some of the larger ones can be high especially ones at the end of higher speed limit roads.

I’m surprised that I’ve not yet read anything negative about the consultation document wording with regard to the cyclists, etc., who it seems will be allowed to use the left hand lane to go around the roundabout. It suggests all the cycling organisations for example have been happy with the proposal, does it not.

Of course the final wording will be important, but I have a feeling the wording has not got challenged in any way reading the numerous reported articles on the forthcoming changes.

police appealing for dash cam footage after tragic ambulance crash in kent ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-59891681

Sounds like a copyright infringement to me