Getting prosecuted from Dashcam?

Bug One said:
Not sure if that was in response to my post. My concern is 'genuine' scammers picking up on this and updating their scam scripts to pretend to be the police to get people to pay fines over the phone.
Click to expand...
Mostly Budforce suggestion that militant cyclists are out there to get you. I probably picked up on your language in error.

In any case, if you fool for a scam like that, shame on you really. The process for getting prosecuted for a driving offence is well documented and it’s starts with a NIP to the registered keeper giving them the opportunity to name the driver.

Bluecube said:
Does there not have to be proof of who’s driving the car before any prosecution can go ahead? No one has been identified from what I’ve read so far.

Also, I’d expect any warning of prosecution or whatever to be supplied to a person either in writing or by a policeman in person. I’d ignore any random phone call.
Click to expand...
See above a ‘notice of incensed prosecution’ (letter) is sent to the registered keeper requiring them to name the driver or be deemed to be the driver. Only after they respond is action actually taken. If they don’t respond, they are eventually summoned to court.
 
Last edited:
The OP said the police got in touch, that usually means a NIP and not just a phone call. I don’t know where people are jumping to the “scammer” idea from.

As said above and a few times in this thread previously. THE POLICE DO NOT NEED TO IDENTIFY THE DRIVER TO PROSECUTE.

Sorry for the shouting but it really boggles the mind that people still think Matlock, Petrocelli (remember him), or if you are younger Law and Order is an accurate source for legal advice.
 
Last edited:
Bug One said:
Personally, I'd like to see a law introduced that if there is a cycle lane available, cyclists can be prosecuted for using the road instead. There's a long straight 60 near to me where all the full lycra crowd will use the road instead of the massive wide cycle path - I expect because they're recoding their activity on strava and want to get a good time (the cycle path is fractionally longer). Infuriating.
Click to expand...

Cycle lanes are notorious for being poorly maintained and a dumping ground for road debris and other hazards like parked cars or street furniture plonked in the middle of them. Likewise they are often intersected by side roads which you need to give way to which you wouldn’t do on the road.

They are generally not fit for purpose which is why a lot of people who cycle for exercise don’t use them.

They can be a pretty hairy place when they are a shared space with pedestrians, you are dodging the dog, pram, turds, pot holes, debris, street furniture etc. Cyclists have to give pedestrians a wide birth like cars to a cyclist and generally slow down to a crawl as most don’t pay any attention to their surroundings, bells or polite calls to move over.

Shared spaces are fine if you are pottering down to the shops. If you are trying to exercise on a bike, they are generally not the place to be. You generally can’t keep the pace up because they are too narrow with too many hazards.

There’s a cycle lane that runs though my estate, I’d avoid it and use the road because it’s basically the local dog walking route. Every 100m or so is a dog on a long lead with an owner that has limited control over it. It’s bad enough on foot, let alone on a bike.

Edit: I forgot to mention the joggers and phone zombies! Likewise pedestrians with noise cancelling head/earphones (which is also almost all joggers) just wander about all over the place and you can ding your bell all you like but they can’t hear you…
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
Yeah that does seem weird to me, if I was accused of doing something wrong, I would like to see the evidence if I wasnt aware I actually did anything wrong
Click to expand...
yes that's why I'd call police bluff - ops friend must know how confident he is in his driving skills and consistency.

I mean I have a women who always overtakes too close, and I could gather evidence over months which would be compelling - she is also one of these modal drivers who drives in the drain even when not overtaking,
and no oncoming traffic - her citroens suspension must be nacked (maybe driver aids for lane keeping do that too, in newer carsl)
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Cycle lanes are notorious for being poorly maintained and a dumping ground for road debris and other hazards like parked cars or street furniture plonked in the middle of them. Likewise they are often intersected by side roads which you need to give way to which you wouldn’t do on the road.

They are generally not fit for purpose which is why a lot of people who cycle for exercise don’t use them.

They can be a pretty hairy place when they are a shared space with pedestrians, you are dodging the dog, pram, turds, pot holes, debris, street furniture etc. Cyclists have to give pedestrians a wide birth like cars to a cyclist and generally slow down to a crawl as most don’t pay any attention to their surroundings, bells or polite calls to move over.

Shared spaces are fine if you are pottering down to the shops. If you are trying to exercise on a bike, they are generally not the place to be. You generally can’t keep the pace up because they are too narrow with too many hazards.

There’s a cycle lane that runs though my estate, I’d avoid it and use the road because it’s basically the local dog walking route. Every 100m or so is a dog on a long lead with an owner that has limited control over it. It’s bad enough on foot, let alone on a bike.

Edit: I forgot to mention the joggers and phone zombies! Likewise pedestrians with noise cancelling head/earphones (which is also almost all joggers) just wander about all over the place and you can ding your bell all you like but they can’t hear you…
Click to expand...

The general advice is not to use cycle lanes if you are travelling above 15mph either, guidance specifically says that for speeds above 15mph then cyclists should be using the road, not cycle paths.
 
ICDP said:
What a total load of utter tripe. Whatever you do OP, don’t take this advice.

I have no love for the police and know how bad they can be with some of their crap but the point is we will rarely win in such cases and when we do it is after much stress and financial cost.
Click to expand...

Calm down Winston..... If you are happy enough taking a fine with no proof go for it. It might not even be OPs friends car it could be cloned plates.

Uncle Saul will do you a no win no fee.
 
BUDFORCE said:
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?
Click to expand...
my mate on the other side of the coin sent his dashcam footage to the police of some berk who overtook him on double white lines and almost hit an oncomming vehicle.

The police contacted him back and told him they were contacting the driver and would be using the evidence......

So i can confirm, the police do use publicly submitted video evidence.

however imo this is a good thing.

I would say however i think the accused should have a right to see the evidence against them (without having to go to court) if they genuinely are not sure they are at fault.... if for no other reason than to not waste the already overwhelmed courts time over something which can be sorted out with out them.
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
The OP said the police got in touch, that usually means a NIP and not just a phone call. I don’t know where people are jumping to the “scammer” idea from.

As said above and a few times in this thread previously. THE POLICE DO NOT NEED TO IDENTIFY THE DRIVER TO PROSECUTE.

Sorry for the shouting but it really boggles the mind that people still think Matlock, Petrocelli (remember him), or if you are younger Law and Order is an accurate source for legal advice.
Click to expand...

There has been occasional instances of scammers sending out letters purporting to be from the police with a fake NIP and so on, pressuring people into "paying a fine" in lieu of being taken to court (possibly happens more frequently but as people don't like to talk about stuff like that they just pay up and never realise it was fake).

The police don't need to identify the driver to prosecute no but nominally they do need to present a certain minimum amount of accurate information and give the registered keeper reasonable assistance in identifying the driver when an alleged offence has occurred.
 
Last edited:
I really do not see the issue with asking for evidence. Many years ago now, my dad almost took points (for speeding) on my behalf because i was a teenager (edit not that it matters, i was in my 20s) and he was worried it would knacker my driving.**

Without telling me because i was on holiday at the time he had filled in the paperwork and was going to pay (it could only have been me because they were away at the time of the incident).

It was only because he moaned at me when i came home for it and i categorically promised it wasnt me. it turned out someone had cloned his plates. when he pushed back the case was dropped.

**yes i know it was wrong of him to do that and i would never have asked him to anyway, but i think a lot of parents would if push came to shove.

the whole "fine is X if you ask to see the evidence, fine is Y if you take it without seeing it" is totally wrong imo.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
How does that work then? What if you don't know who was driving? 3 people can drive one of our cars for example.
Click to expand...

Registered keeper can be prosecuted for failure to identify and it doesn't stop it going to court.

It can also go the other way though if the police haven't presented sufficient accurate information and/or given the registered keeper reasonable help in identifying the driver it can be thrown out of court as well, though in some cases they don't have to do that if there is a specific reason.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
How does that work then? What if you don't know who was driving? 3 people can drive one of our cars for example.
Click to expand...
isnt the technical law that the named driver is meant to know who is driving the car at any time............ so IF the car is identified, unless someone else fesses up then it is automatically the named driver?

I am not saying that is fair but i thought that was their get around........... if the named driver wants to plead innocent i think they have to name the guilty one. I admit i am not certain however

edit... multiple ninjas!.
 
Last edited:
Challenge it. It seems like it would be hard to prove there wasn't a 1.5m gap from camera footage unless it was really close.

How the footage was actually handled can affect evidence as well. If the one who submitted it or the police didn't follow procedures perfectly, it can be thrown out. E.g it can't be copied from the device/memory card as that will be seen as being edited, it has to be an original to stand up as evidence. They are probably hoping you just plead guilty.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
isnt the technical law that the named driver is meant to know who is driving the car at any time............ so IF the car is identified, unless someone else fesses up then it is automatically the named driver?

I am not saying that is fair but i thought that was their get around........... if the named driver wants to plead innocent i think they have to name the guilty one. I admit i am not certain however

edit... multiple ninjas!.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I can't remember what I did 5 minutes ago... need I say more? :)
3 people can drive our car. If you asked me who was driving at X time, X weeks ago, I may very well struggle to remember in some circumstances, especially when 2 or more of the 3 possible drivers travel together in the car, could be any one of us.
 
jaybee said:
Sometimes I can't remember what I did 5 minutes ago... need I say more? :)
3 people can drive our car. If you asked me who was driving at X time, X weeks ago, I may very well struggle to remember in some circumstances, especially when 2 or more of the 3 possible drivers travel together in the car, could be any one of us.
Click to expand...

I mean the guy didn't even remember doing it, so that is very possible.
 
jaybee said:
Right, so surely you can ask for evidence to help identify? They cannot withhold that surely?
Click to expand...

Yes the police are expected to accurately identify the vehicle, place and time and give reasonable assistance, which nominally would be still images not necessarily the video if requested unless there is a specific reason to withhold certain details which could harm the prosecution.

Nasher said:
Challenge it. It seems like it would be hard to prove there wasn't a 1.5m gap from camera footage unless it was really close.
Click to expand...

To be honest unless there is multiple submissions and/or very detailed coverage of the incident it would be fairly easy with someone with sufficient law knowledge to make a case for there being reasonable doubt as to the video being accurate enough representation i.e. camera quality, manipulation, etc. but probably more costly than just paying the fine so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom