I think they can use it if it suits them.
I read a story a while ago where a biker had strapped a video camera on his tank before going for a blast which included speeding & wheelies.
The camera view captured his speedo as well as the sceenary.
Police stopped him & saw the camera.
They confiscated the tape then used the video evidence from his own camera to prosecute him for dangerous driving.
|
|
That's a different situation - that's his own camera recording his own activity. Video surveillance for the identification of crime has to be authorised.
|
|
|
|
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, unauthorised sureveillance (which such video would be) would render the evidence gathered inadmissable.
Only applies to criminal evidence, not motoring offences I believe
|
|
Er, a motoring offence is a criminal matter and, therfore, the same rules of evidence apply.
|
Er, a motoring offence is a criminal matter and, therfore, the same rules of evidence apply.
I think most driving offences are "civil" matters rather than "criminal" matters
JaB
|
|
|
Er, a motoring offence is a criminal matter and, therfore, the same rules of evidence apply.
Errrr, no it isn't. Not in every instance. Depends on the charges being brought.
|
|
Can you give an example of a motoring offence which is not covered by criminal law, because I can't think of one?!
|
I withdraw my earlier remark. I've checked back over the links I referred to and found some glaring errors. Road Traffic Offences are criminal offences.
Sorry.
Now I need to sift through the gubbins on video evidence in relation to motoring offences. I know these are treated differently as warrants are required for video surveillance of an individual where a crime is suspected, but no such warrants are required for cameras in traffic cars. Possibly as they are being used as an observational aid rather than specifically targetted surveillance?
|
|
|
|
|
Would hardly call it unauthorised surveillance. You would just say that you were recording your journey for the purposes of putting together an amateur production, and you happened to capture an example of dangerous driving.
I have been considering doing this for a while now, but I wasn't intending to inform the police. I was just going to set up a web site with examples of the maniac driving i see each and everyday.
|
"I have been considering doing this for a while now, but I wasn't intending to inform the police. I was just going to set up a web site with examples of the maniac driving i see each and everyday."
Yes, yes, yes. Do it. I'll submit mpegs for that; no reservations.
V
|
How about a camera phone with car kit, movie mode and a large memory card?
It's already in AVI format then, too. Probably not ideal for mounting prosecutions as it wouldn't record speed and your car isn't - and would you really want all your minor transgressions recorded - but it would be brilliant for your own purposes.
|
You can get dv cams now using compact flash/sd cards that produce mpeg files. I think they're around the £150 mark. I don't know what quality they are but they're quite small and they may not even need to be plugged into the cigarette lighter so you could be more creative with the mounting point.
A laptop in the boot and a pair of wireless security cams, one in the front grille and one out of the back window could produce some excellent footage :-)
If these people are driving badly there is a good chance that they do it all the time so I doubt if they would work out who it was that was filming them. It is probably best to only film each miscreant once though!
If you do film someone I think you would have to blank out the number plates in the scene, especially those of other drivers. Someone that knows the person would be able to identify them but hopefully a stranger wouldn't which might reduce the conflict with data protection and human rights issues. As far as i know it is perfectly legal to take pictures/video of someone when you and them are in a public place.
teabelly
|
As far as i know it is perfectly legal to take pictures/video of someone when you and them are in a public place.
Correct. I recently did a corporate communications course and people have no legal right to their image, not even royalty.
as for breaching data protection, well that applies to personal data, and showing a number plate and not providing a name to link it to does not constitute a breach.
gave up on the idea of the web site tho, as I already have too much going on in my life.
|
|
|
|
You could be on seriously dodgy ground posting such images on a website. Claiming that an individual had comitted an offence and publicly identifying him/her (by the reg no) could lead to somebody suing you for libel if they could then produce a reasonable excuse as to why they had performed the particular manouvre you had filmed.
Aside from the risk of yourself being identified and becoming the target of a revenge attack.
Frustrating as it often is to see dangerous drivers getting away with it, I would tend to leave such matters to the police to deal with.
|
So take care not to claim they have comitted an offence.
Just present the video as what you saw, in a public place. Leave the viewers to make their own mind up.
|
So take care not to claim they have comitted an offence. Just present the video as what you saw, in a public place. Leave the viewers to make their own mind up.
wot he said ^
Jab
|
|
Yes, teabelly did. I was replying to Tom Shaw, though, before teabelly's post.
|
|
|
You could expand the site co cover other aspects of driving - footage of inapproriate speed limits for example.
I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that there were plenty of video cameras dotted round the roads already. Why isn't this footage used?
|
|
|
|
Most road traffic offences are civil prosecutions it only turns nasty when a driver kills somebody due to DRD,DD, or DWDC and things like that. I think its a great idea and lets face it the Police do it. Totally hands free of course. The speed is not important as it would only be your speed not the offending vehicle. On clearer sections the 1km markers could identify your speed so be carefull. Regards Peter
|
Most road traffic offences are civil prosecutions it only turns nasty when a driver kills somebody due to DRD,DD, or DWDC and things like that.
No, no, no, no, no!
It seems that people have a fundamental misunderstanding about what is criminal law and what is civil law. Most motoring offences are "summary only" offences and, therefore, are only heard in the Magistrates' Courts. Although these are lesser offences, they are still criminal matters and not "civil prosecutions".
Civil law relates to issues such as breach of contract, libel, etc.
|
|
More excellent legal advice from PeterD who wrote 'It is illegal to be over the drink limit and in your car whilst parked in your drive.'
|
|
Civil Prosecution? one for the lawyers book of oxymorons I think. If it's a prosecution then by definition it's criminal.
The only motoring issues dealt with as civil matters are those that have been de-criminalised. Principally this means parking, but in London (and coming soon elsewhere)it also covers box junctions prohibited turns and a few other small scale moving traffic infringements.
|
The footage could not be used as evidence in court, only as information for those investigating a crime, such as if you have CCTV in your shed and you lawnmower gets stolen, the footage is not admissible in court, but if the Police recognise the person, and go to their house and find your mower and a van full of crowbars and bolt croppers, this is admissible in court.
|
Why is it not admissible?
If you attend as a witness to affirm that you placed the camera there on that day at that time, that you set it running, that you removed the cassette and kept it safe, and that the video is, to your recollection, a true representation of what you also saw happening, then its veracity is established.
If the tape is of a person doing something in a public place in full view of the world then there are no sensible privacy issues.
If, then, then tape is not admissible then the Courts are saying that an accurate photographic record is not admissible but a hazt memory is???
|
|
I understood that traffic videos on their own are not admisable as evidence but are used to support evidence supplied by a police officer.
|
|
ProVida By Proof - digitally encrypted chip on tape, similar to the tapes used to record interviews....same as enhanced images from the CCTV are generally not allowed. The courts are just pantomimes run by liberals.
|
"The courts are just pantomimes run by liberals."
Oh no they aren't!
I'm not sure we need vigilante motorists. Whether a specific motoring deed is dangerous or not is pretty subjective, depending on the observer's personal stance. I don't condone bad driving but I am happy for the current processes to take care of those who transgress (even though there may not be enough police on the roads - but that's a different issue)
|
|
Perhaps I am loosing the plot ?? Regards Peter
|
|
Myles. Thanks for the correction, your right, most motoring offences are criminal not civil. Why I though it was the other way round I do not know. Having never, touch wood, been prosecuted for a motoring offence I had not studied the matter. Thanks Peter
|
"I'm not sure we need vigilante motorists"
I'm not suggesting that. I'm wondering whether it might give the Police (in the absence of any traffic cars these days) the opportunity to see bad driving and make THEIR judgment as to whether it consitiutes enough for them to pop round and feel a collar.
Anyroadup - I might just start a website with space for clips - no comments, just clips, so no libel. Might educate the odd driver into relising what dodgy manoeuvres look like.
V
|
Somebody already beat you to that, Vin. In fact he went one better and ran a whole television series showing instances of bad driving which ran for years.
Spoilt it a bit when he himself got done for drink driving, though.
|
But how, for instance would you know that those poeple tailgating at 2 foot are not a VIP close protection team convoy, or him going through a red light is not undercover Police trying to follow someone without being seen - it could blow their cover.
|
But how, for instance would you know that those poeple tailgating at 2 foot are not a VIP close protection team convoy, or him going through a red light is not undercover Police trying to follow someone without being seen - it could blow their cover.
'cos it's agin the law (the law of averages, that is!)
If more than a tiny proportion of the drivers behaving like that are undercover police or VIP close protection, the country must must far more people in the security industry than any of us ever imagined.
|
In a similar sort of vein, HGV tachographs record speed and time.
Tacho's are subject to all sorts of regulations to ensure that they are accurate, and the driver has to ensure that his personal details are entered on the tacho disc before he drives the vehicle. But a tacho disc readout on it's own can't be used as evidence against (for example) a speeding driver. Other evidence has to be available, such as a speed trap. The Tacho readout will confirm the time of the offence and the speed at which the vehicle was travelling, but can only support the other evidence.
|
But how, for instance would you know that those people tailgating at 2 foot are not a VIP close protection team convoy
> And in what way would that mitigate anything? If they are 2ft from the back of another vehicle at 70mph, say, it's not safer because they have a reason for it. If the vehicle in front stamps on their brakes for any reason, an accident will result. That'll help the VIP's safety, being in a pile-up.
or him going through a red light is not undercover Police trying to follow someone without being seen - it could blow their cover.
> How would that work, then? Someone sees footage of vehicle xxxnnnx going through a red light. How does that identify them as an unmarked car? And what are the chances of it being anything other than another dozy cretin trying to shave a minute off his journey time to work?
V
|
|
I am sure I am right in saying that buses carry Cameras and take pictures of cars in bus lanes at wrong times and these are admissable as evidence?
|
I think that driving in bus lanes would be like parking tickets, and pursued as a by law or civil matter, not a criminal offence.
VIP CPT drive very close to prevent other vehicles having any chance of splitting the convoy. When a possible threat is detected, the gap will be closed, such as in a busy multiple lane city road, on an empty motorway at night, the gap can be widened a bit.
Cars can be replaced, but people cannot, the CPT don't worry as much about damaging the vehicles as they do about the VIP, and actually when they are that close, the risk of injury if there is a crash, is less when they are driving close to one another, as the speed differential between the vehicles is going to be very low. All cars should be in radio contact, and the lead car will have a co-driver as well as the driver watching the road ahead.
|
"VIP CPT drive very close to prevent other vehicles having any chance of splitting the convoy."
OK, I demur to your better knowledge.
However, I don't think it was a VIP CPT team driving their BMW (sorry, but it was!) 3ft from my rear bumper this morning at 70mph on the M3. I suspect it never has been Bodie and Doyle scaring the bejeesus out of me in the mornings...
I think the chances of catching unmarked Police and VIP drivers under my scheme is minimal, so I'll disregard the chance if that's OK with you all.
V
|
ST is right about the relative danger of a CPT team tailgating each other.
But Vin was proposing to film those who tailgate him. Is Vin a VIP? And one who doesn't know he is, so gets a CPT team without being told?
|
"Is Vin a VIP?"
Only to me, Patently, only to me.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
