ADUK Archive

Having read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-33693415 I had several thoughts.

In this case, the driver of the vehicle with the dashcam appears to be employing AD techniques - laid well back, getting the view, and an unhurried overtake in the available gap.

The second is that the dashcam video resulted - quite properly - in a conviction with a fine and points for careless driving.

Lastly - what's the hive mind thought on having a dashcam in your own car ? I've thought about it, but having heard a story of an advanced driver who was convicted of causing death by dangerous when he crashed, and some while after a motorcyclist ploughed into the crashed car (stop in the distance you can see to be clear, anyone?) I'm in two minds.

<edited to clarify my question!>

dvenman wrote:The second is that the dashcam video resulted - quite properly - in a conviction with a fine and points for careless driving.

Quite properly? No, sorry, I disagree. Potentially consider dash-cam evidence to back up the opinion of police officers, but at best they are only ever going to show a partial picture, and I /really/ don't want to live a society full of wanabee vigilantes who are quick to post the slightest indiscretion (in their opinion) of someone elses driving. And is it reasonable to expect the police to review all these videos, or is it just going to become an X-factor like context to see which footage is most viewed on youtube before they investigate

It's curious that (for example) villagers operating speed camera guns cannot have the evidence used for prosecution - only a snotty letter sent to drivers - and yet dash-cam evidence is deemed as good enough for a conviction.

/troll - if there was space for the golf to pass on the inside before overtaking the truck, why isn't the dash-cam driver equally inconsiderate in not getting on with the overtake?

Post 1 and we're seeing hairs split and topic deviation already - is that a record ?

Other than holding a different view than mine about this particular instance, would you use a dashcam, jont ? If so, why ? If not, why not ? Maybe use it some times and not others ?

jont wrote:/troll - if there was space for the golf to pass on the inside before overtaking the truck, why isn't the dash-cam driver equally inconsiderate in not getting on with the overtake?

You could apply that rational every time the safe distance is more than a car's length so I'm not with your troll on that one.

As for the original question, I am in agreement that having arbitrary judges of standards armed with cameras, recording evidence to be reviewed by the jury of social media, isn't a good thing.

/troll back at you - however, at least the dash cam incidents tend to be something more involved than simply exceeding the number on a stick which is pretty much all the official cameras record.

I thought long and hard about getting a dashcam (there are threads on here somewhere), eventually went for it. I was more concerned about the psychological impact on my attitude - other road users/passengers would have to judge that of course. But I've pretty much forgotten that it's there most of the time. It's been educational for me a couple of times to review the footage of incidents.

The clip shown is the sort of thing I had in mind before purchasing mine, if things had turned out nasty either as evidence for the police or insurance. Not to post it on youtube...

I think the proper thing for the driver to do in that situation would have been to forward the clip to the police, who would have been able to review the build up to the incident too - which we don't get to see here - not to place the matter in the court of public opinion.

Carbon Based wrote:/troll back at you - however, at least the dash cam incidents tend to be something more involved than simply exceeding the number on a stick which is pretty much all the official cameras record.

Not really. Both are a piss poor method for assessing safe driving. How much of what "advanced" drivers do (such as overtaking, offsiding, extended positioning) could be viewed by joe public as dangerous if a short section of video was viewed out of context?

jont

That's part of my reservation. I can't find any references to it (I've got minimal detail) but the accident I refer to apparently involved an advanced driver, employing techniques which other road users considered "dangerous". When he had an off, ended up on the wrong side of the road, and some time later the motorcyclist (who couldn't stop...clear) hit him and died, other road users considered the car driver at fault.

I'm with you as to the utility (or futility) of posting incidents to social media, but being able to show proper evidence to a court - as in the case in the news article - is much more compelling than a written statement not backed up by such.

dvenman wrote:jont

That's part of my reservation. I can't find any references to it (I've got minimal detail) but the accident I refer to apparently involved an advanced driver, employing techniques which other road users considered "dangerous". When he had an off, ended up on the wrong side of the road, and some time later the motorcyclist (who couldn't stop...clear) hit him and died, other road users considered the car driver at fault.

Are you on about the PH poster?

If so, I don't think they had AD training at the time, though I could be wrong, and the motorcyclist didn't die but was seriously injured.

They were convicted (and went to prison) partly on the testimony of other witnesses who they had previously overtaken, they say safely. If anything, a dashcam might have helped their case.

The fact that they (whoever "they" were) crashed at all suggests they were too close to the edge of their personal performance envelope either some, or all of the time.

Dashcams - no thanks. Maybe just sometimes for the making of useful videos for tuition purposes, although I don't claim to be good enough to act as a model, most of the time.

trashbat wrote:

dvenman wrote:jont

That's part of my reservation. I can't find any references to it (I've got minimal detail) but the accident I refer to apparently involved an advanced driver, employing techniques which other road users considered "dangerous". When he had an off, ended up on the wrong side of the road, and some time later the motorcyclist (who couldn't stop...clear) hit him and died, other road users considered the car driver at fault.

Are you on about the PH poster?

If so, I don't think they had AD training at the time, though I could be wrong, and the motorcyclist didn't die but was seriously injured.

They were convicted (and went to prison) partly on the testimony of other witnesses who they had previously overtaken, they say safely. If anything, a dashcam might have helped their case.

If that case, then I think it was far more complex than all that was posted on PH - the detail leading to the decision to prosecute is not something that is ever fully revealed - would a dashcam have made a difference I don't know...

however I think that we do have to accept a balance in society:
- we know that overtaking is not illegal if done properly / well
- society as a rule frowns upon it and doesn't understand it
- if something happens from an overtake the person involved is more likely to be assumed to be in the wrong than had they not overtaken - even if at a logic level the overtake is irrelevant - e.g. a blow-out causing a spin and accident, if you were sitting behind a queue of traffic v. overtaking - either case it could cause you to hit someone - the overtake would not necessarily be the causing factor - yet society would instantly assume the driver to be at fault because of it...

I have a dashcam which is rarely used, but I use it occasionally for personal review - need to wire it in properly! But agree with the above in terms of not wishing to build a society where we are all spending our time judging each other - the biblical parable of taking the plank out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in someone else's comes to mind!

Alasdair

For reference, this is the story, the second post being the more pertinent:

http://mx5cartalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=32543

Dashcams are worth their weight in gold in certain instances, i have had one fitted in my own personal car for the past 5 years and to be honest I can count on one hand the times I have took footage off of it to use.
The examples that we see on places like Youtube and such like its the same people who post the incidnts that are supposedly dangerous driving when in fact they are just the sort of driving that you see on our roads on a daily basis with the odd exception of course.
We still have some cars at work that dont have video in them and I use my own dash cam in it and wouldnt be without it as there is no better evidence than seeing it on film you cant argue with it as it is untainted cant lie as it happens, and sometimes it has got people off as when reviewed you realise at what you saw at the time was not how it actually developed so again works all round.
I would say if you want one get one if you dont then carry on as you are and argue your case verbally if something happens on the road that you are involved. Just my opinion of course.
Stephen

Stephen wrote:I use my own dash cam in it and wouldnt be without it as there is no better evidence than seeing it on film you cant argue with it as it is untainted cant lie as it happens,

Rubbish. Footage can be edited, manipulated etc etc.

StressedDave wrote:Irrespective of the eye-witness evidence, It'd be a case of res ipsa locitur for the DD charge.

I had to google that but it seems to be a fancy way of saying what I said, or DLAC His own statement also says that. AD training - I don't think so. He says:

- he entered a corner too fast
- the car started to rotate
- he applied maximum power to try and correct the rotation which eventually caused him to leave the road when the wheels regained grip.

That doesn't sound "advanced" in the sense I understand it. However, we're drifting, and raking up a past episode for which the driver has done his time now, so it seems unfair to keep on beating him up. Mistake, acknowledged by the protagonist.

Jont: not sure I understand your outrage. Sure there are times when a vid can be misleading but there are also times when it's pretty clear what has gone on and it should be counted as good evidence. Isn't that what our court process is all about...prosecution and defence etc?

The video in question (OP) is just such a case...I can't imagine any circumstances where it could be judged to be a sensible, safe manoeuvre and the undertaker was rightly judged to be a twonk and suffered the consequences.