Getting prosecuted from Dashcam?

[BUDFORCE]

Apologies if there is a thread on this already.

This happened to my mate (genuinely, not not me) and honestly got my pretty concerned.

The police got in touch with him and want to prosecute him with driving with undue care and attention. He can plead guilty and it'll like be 3 points plus fine or whatever.

However, the police are prosecuting him based on evidence supplied by a dashcam from a member of public.

It turns out he passed a cyclist and apparently didn't leave 1.5 meters between his car and the cyclist. My mate doesn't even remember the incident.

The police wont show him the footage, saying for that it'll go to court, and my mate doesn't really want to go through the hassle or potential costs if he doesn't win, understandable.

Anyway, where I am going with this thread is this is something I had never heard of before? I was under the impression that the police wouldn't act on dashcam alone, well at least not for things like this, and the person who took the dashcam evidence would have to take you to court themselves (and given most people basically wouldn't bother) it wasn't a thing.

But it clearly is a thing.

It concerns me that, given how many dashcams everyone has these days, if you step out of line at any time whilst driving, even accidentally, there is a risk that if someone captures that and submits it to the police you can be prosecuted?

 

[Rroff]

Police will take action based on dashcam footage (Google Operation Snap for details), normally only in the extremes of dangerous driving, etc. I've been involved in two people losing/giving up their licenses due to wrong way driving based on dashcam evidence alone.

I'd have thought they have to make the footage available though if it is going to court and will be submitted as evidence. (And for the registered keeper to identify who was driving).

He'd want to check it isn't a scam though - there is the odd one doing the rounds trying to pressure people into "paying" a fine and "admitting" guilt rather than go to court.

 

[jpaul]

if you step out of line at any time whilst driving, even accidentally, there is a risk that if someone captures that and submits it to the police you can be prosecuted?

Do you think people are that vindictive - to spend time submitting coverage if it was a marginal offence - did you adjudicate on your mates footage ?

I get cut up most days on a bicycle, by people who squeeze past on nsl road with oncoming cars, or, aren't metres away when there is nothing coming towards us.

 

[ICDP]

The fact your mate can’t even remember it is not a good sign. If they genuinely feel they always give a minimum of 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists, then dispute it.

Also if your concern is being prosecuted because you step out of line, that has always been the case.

 

[Rroff]

Do you think people are that vindictive - to spend time submitting coverage if it was a marginal offence - did you adjudicate on your mates footage ?

Actually happens quite a bit - my local force have even prosecuted the person vindictively submitting before instead of or as well as the person it was being submitted about.

 

[rodenal]

It's not as simple as the police deciding to take someone to court. They need to submit the evidence which may or may not then result in an attempt at prosecution.

It is also unfortunately entirely possible for this to proceed on the basis of evidence having been viewed by a police officer and then written up, but not actually reviewed by anyone else by the time papers are issued. The threshold for careless driving is relatively low in comparison to dangerous driving (rightly, obviously) so can be harder to contest making this a bit tricky.

If he genuinely does not remember the incident and has never been offered any evidence it would not be looked on poorly to contest any charge. Not giving 1.5m is very specific, how is that going to be measured via video evidence? Sounds.....interesting to use as a rationale, albeit that's not how careless/driving without due care is measured. It may be worth checking home insurance r.e potential legal coverage to defend it too. If not available the cost quite frankly will outweigh the impact of a low end careless driving charge, but I'd be waiting until I was actually issued papers (which will clearly state the date, time and facts of the incident) before making that decision.

 

[sigma]

Could be helmet camera footage, I know someone who got a Police warning from a helmet... cam.

 

[Dangerous Dave]

Do you think people are that vindictive - to spend time submitting coverage if it was a marginal offence - did you adjudicate on your mates footage ?

I get cut up most days on a bicycle, by people who squeeze past on nsl road with oncoming cars, or, aren't metres away when there is nothing coming towards us.

The amount of cyclists with camera's is high it wouldn't surprise me if it was the cyclist that submitted the video in the OPs case.

I find the cyclists with camera's are more likely to put themselves in situations with cars that can be avoided.

*nothing against cyclists, I cycle more miles than I drive a year.

 

[sigma]

Do you think people are that vindictive - to spend time submitting coverage if it was a marginal offence - did you adjudicate on your mates footage ?

I get cut up most days on a bicycle, by people who squeeze past on nsl road with oncoming cars, or, aren't metres away when there is nothing coming towards us.

You're absolutely nuts for cycling on NSL roads, I have no sympathy unfortunately. I think cyclists shouldn't be allowed on roads fast than 40, probably not even faster than 30 really, it's just not safe for either party.

 

[Conscript]

You're absolutely nuts for cycling on NSL roads, I have no sympathy unfortunately. I think cyclists shouldn't be allowed on roads fast than 40, probably not even fast than 30 really, it's just not safe.

Most country lanes are NSL, but I'd hazard a guess that they're much quieter and safer for cyclists than larger roads with lower limits.

 

[sigma]

Most country lanes are NSL, but I'd hazard a guess that they're much quieter and safer for cyclists than larger roads with lower limits.

That's all good and well... until some numpty doing 60 doesn't see you.

 

[Conscript]

If you stopped cyclists from using any road faster than 30mph you essentially make cycling any meaningful distance pointless for a lot of people. Anyone who lives in one village would be unable to cycle to the next if the road between is NSL (often the case here in Kent at least). Seems a little bit unfair and restrictive for cyclists.

 

[BUDFORCE]

The amount of cyclists with camera's is high it wouldn't surprise me if it was the cyclist that submitted the video in the OPs case.

Yup it was the cyclist, the police told him that much.

 

[BUDFORCE]

I'd have thought they have to make the footage available though if it is going to court and will be submitted as evidence. (And for the registered keeper to identify who was driving).

Well this is the thing that got me, they won't show him the footage, he can either plead guilty, or has to go to court to challenge it, only then will the footage become available.

I thought that odd, I'm not an expert, far from it, but I got caught speeding many years ago, and there was a thing where you could request the evidence, which I got.

He seemingly is not getting this option.

 

[Rroff]

You're absolutely nuts for cycling on NSL roads, I have no sympathy unfortunately. I think cyclists shouldn't be allowed on roads fast than 40, probably not even faster than 30 really, it's just not safe for either party.

It has got pretty crazy on the main route (NSL A30) that runs through the area where I live - it is just way too busy to be combining cyclists and other vehicles safely regardless of whether cyclists have a right to be there or not and even though at times you get a fair amount of farm traffic which isn't hugely faster and gets pretty silly if you've got multiple sets of cyclist spread out over a few miles of it.

We need a significant investment in expanding cycling, etc. infrastructure.

 

[BUDFORCE]

Do you think people are that vindictive - to spend time submitting coverage if it was a marginal offence - did you adjudicate on your mates footage ?

Yes I 100% do.

There are some right tossers out there on push bikes, probably with a chip on their shoulder thinking they own the road, only because they do not have number plates.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of awful drivers who don't give enough space, so I can understand how someone can end up like that, but I reckon the guy is a right entitled little ****, and is probably submitting 10 of theses a day trying to stitch up "the enemy".

As said previously they won't release the footage.

 

[rodenal]

Well this is the thing that got me, they won't show him the footage, he can either plead guilty, or has to go to court to challenge it, only then will the footage become available.

I thought that odd, I'm not an expert, far from it, but I got caught speeding many years ago, and there was a thing where you could request the evidence, which I got.

He seemingly is not getting this option.

The individual(s) that spoke to him probably don't have it. It will be made available but quite frustratingly that may not be until the last possible moment (could be literally days before trial). IF that were the case though, and IF it was particularly incriminating it would be likely some more time would be granted.

Of course by that point money has been spent and the system has started turning. This could genuinely take months if not year(s) btw

 

[Uther]

If the cyclist submitted the footage and the police want to take action then your friend is probably doomed.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

It’s must be very good footage to identify your friend as the driver. Is it rear and front footage?

 

[BUDFORCE]

It’s must be very good footage to identify your friend as the driver. Is it rear and front footage?

That's the point, he doesn't know.

They won't release the footage unless he takes it to court, which obviously means he risks loosing and paying court fees etc, plus a harsher penalty, Vs just pleading guilty and taking the points and a £60 fine or whatever it is these days.