ADUK Archive

I recently installed a rear facing video camera on my car and am horrified on the high number of drivers who have driven behind me whilst operating their hand held phone.

It must be at least one a week that I have recorded via the video camera displaying evidence of the individual committing this offences whist driving.

I am amazed that they have not seen the camera in the back window, although I expect they are so busy trying to drive and have a telephone conversation at the same time! and too occupied to see the camera.

Question: What is the process of doing this and would I be required as being a witness if the incident go to court, or would I be able to keep my immunity? I would have expected that the video itself would be sufficient and would not be able to add any more information to the court. The video evidence identifies their location via GPS, the time and date of the offence, the registration number of the car and video of them holding the phone whist driving!

By submitting the video evidence to the police then does this make me a vigilante who operates within the law, or just a law abiding individual who would report a crime like a house burglary to the police?

Estoril Sport wrote:I recently installed a rear facing video camera on my car and am horrified on the high number of drivers who have driven behind me whilst operating their hand held phone.

It must be at least one a week that I have recorded via the video camera displaying evidence of the individual committing this offences whist driving.

I am amazed that they have not seen the camera in the back window, although I expect they are so busy trying to drive and have a telephone conversation at the same time! and too occupied to see the camera.

Question: What is the process of doing this and would I be required as being a witness if the incident go to court, or would I be able to keep my immunity? I would have expected that the video itself would be sufficient and would not be able to add any more information to the court. The video evidence identifies their location via GPS, the time and date of the offence, the registration number of the car and video of them holding the phone whist driving!

By submitting the video evidence to the police then does this make me a vigilante who operates within the law, or just a law abiding individual who would report a crime like a house burglary to the police?

First of all, are you quite sure you are a law abiding individual, all the time, in all respects? If you're anything like me, and probably most drivers, you will not be a completely law abiding person - certainly not in relation to your use of a motor vehicle; in which case I'd hold off running to the police with the sort of offences your camera is recording. I think I'd be more inclined to concentrate on the reporting of burglaries.

I hope the use of such cameras isn't going to lead to the wholesale recording of errors by other roads users, and reporting them to the authorities. If it's serious offences or dangerous driving then fair enough, maybe; but not the sort of stuff you've described.

As I tell my pupils. "It's not our job to enforce the law, just to abide by it. What others do is entirely up to them."

Bring Brrringgg . . .

"Hello, Noddyshire police force."

"Ah, good morning officer, I'd like to report myself for 15,000 cases of exceeding the speed limit, and have a further 31,000 offences taken into consideration."


Is that what you had in mind?

I agree with fungus, leave the job of enforcing the law to the people paid and trained to do it!

Anyway to answer your specific questions.

Estoril Sport wrote:
Question: and would I be required as being a witness if the incident go to court,

Yes.

or would I be able to keep my immunity?

Why what offence did you commit? Ok Ok I know you meant anonymity. And the answer is no defendants have a right to face their accusers (there are exceptions but this will not be one of them). You can usually ask to have your address withheld but your name (at least) would be given in court and you would be seen by the defendant and public.

I would have expected that the video itself would be sufficient and would not be able to add any more information to the court.

Only if the defendant accepts it without challenge. If not you might at the very least have to give evidence to confirm that the time and date and location were accurate and that the video was an accurate depiction (ie had not been edited) of the alleged event.

The video evidence identifies their location via GPS, the time and date of the offence, the registration number of the car

All of which can be easily modified/faked hence the potential need to give evidence as to their accuracy.

By submitting the video evidence to the police then does this make me a vigilante who operates within the law, or just a law abiding individual who would report a crime like a house burglary to the police?

Neither. Frankly I would describe it as a being busybody with an axe to grind.

There was a story in the the Daily Mail newspaper recently, with a series of pictures taken from a car video camera. It showed the driver of a Tesco artic doing an inadvisable but skilful and apparently legal U-turn safely on a busy London thoroughfare.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... anger.html

The lorry driver was disciplined, which could potentially affect his future employment and income.

The busybody with the camera presumably got his pound of flesh from the newspaper. And it would appear that his vehicle was stationary on a box-junction when he took the footage. It seems that he got away scot-free with that.

I have more sympathy for your view than other respondents but I suspect the police would not act on your videos simply because they haven't got sufficient time and staff. Your heading suggests you're asking if you have a duty to inform the police if your video catches another driving committing an offence. I very much doubt that you have such a duty.

Horse wrote:Bring Brrringgg . . .

"Hello, Noddyshire police force."

"Ah, good morning officer, I'd like to report myself for 15,000 cases of exceeding the speed limit, and have a further 31,000 offences taken into consideration."


Is that what you had in mind?

+100... +1 seems so inadequate... I'll just take the plank out of my eye...

Maybe I can see it as right to report if it seemed to have contributed to an accident?

chriskay wrote:

cliftonite wrote: a Tesco artic doing an inadvisable but skilful and apparently legal U-turn safely on a busy London thoroughfare.

Not legal; the lane he was in was left turn only.

He didn't turn right from that lane.

Estoril Sport wrote:I recently installed a rear facing video camera on my car and am horrified on the high number of drivers who have driven behind me whilst operating their hand held phone.

It must be at least one a week that I have recorded via the video camera displaying evidence of the individual committing this offences whist driving.

I am amazed that they have not seen the camera in the back window, although I expect they are so busy trying to drive and have a telephone conversation at the same time! and too occupied to see the camera.

Question: What is the process of doing this and would I be required as being a witness if the incident go to court, or would I be able to keep my immunity? I would have expected that the video itself would be sufficient and would not be able to add any more information to the court. The video evidence identifies their location via GPS, the time and date of the offence, the registration number of the car and video of them holding the phone whist driving!

By submitting the video evidence to the police then does this make me a vigilante who operates within the law, or just a law abiding individual who would report a crime like a house burglary to the police?

Would you mind telling why you fitted the camera.

sussex2 wrote:

Estoril Sport wrote:I recently installed a rear facing video camera on my car and am horrified on the high number of drivers who have driven behind me whilst operating their hand held phone.

It must be at least one a week that I have recorded via the video camera displaying evidence of the individual committing this offences whist driving.

I am amazed that they have not seen the camera in the back window, although I expect they are so busy trying to drive and have a telephone conversation at the same time! and too occupied to see the camera.

Question: What is the process of doing this and would I be required as being a witness if the incident go to court, or would I be able to keep my immunity? I would have expected that the video itself would be sufficient and would not be able to add any more information to the court. The video evidence identifies their location via GPS, the time and date of the offence, the registration number of the car and video of them holding the phone whist driving!

By submitting the video evidence to the police then does this make me a vigilante who operates within the law, or just a law abiding individual who would report a crime like a house burglary to the police?

Would you mind telling why you fitted the camera.

Well obviously it was done to catch people using hand held mobile phones while driving, in which case it has been moderately successful.

On the other hand, a bit more than one per week isn't that many really. Perhaps we need to get out more.

The thread is in response to recent articles in the press such as "Send us your dashcam videos to catch dangerous drivers: Police appeal to public for evidence of motorists behaving badly" Dailymail and "Police want your dashcam videos of reckless drivers" (The Sunday Times)

There are also benefits to your car insurance costs in having these cameras fitted,to prove who is to blame in the event of an accident. insurers are offering additional discounts to drivers who have them fitted. There are other articles regarding 'crash for cash' and 'flash-for-cash' claims!

A few years ago I was involved in a minor insurance incident, the other driver claims I reversed in to them which I did not. It was their word against mine. If I had a camera fitted then there would be no question that it was the other drivers fault and they drove into me as this would be recorded as the video evidence.

It is well known there is much higher risk of a driver having an accident whist holding a handset and having a conservation on the phone. This is why it is illegal to operate a mobile phone whilst driving. Its an accident waiting to happen. Surely if you can prevent an accident this is better than some driver losing control of their car mounting the kerb and killing a innocent pedestrian.

The guy in question who was operating a mobile phone whilst driving navigated around two roundabouts single handed without using indicators.

First of all, what amazes me is that you are only busting one offender per week - poor show I would say

I do sympathise with your reasons for recording. Of course this can be a double edged sword.....

There is no duty to report in this situation, so far as I can see. Whether you should is a matter of conscience. If I happened to capture something really serious I would see it as my duty to hand over the evidence. But if its just a minor traffic offence you should really think about what kind of society you want to live in. Would you be happy going about your daily business knowing your comrades are laying in wait to capture your every indiscretion and turn you over to the powers that be?

Estoril Sport wrote:The thread is in response to recent articles in the press such as "Send us your dashcam videos to catch dangerous drivers: Police appeal to public for evidence of motorists behaving badly" Dailymail and "Police want your dashcam videos of reckless drivers" (The Sunday Times)

There are also benefits to your car insurance costs in having these cameras fitted,to prove who is to blame in the event of an accident. insurers are offering additional discounts to drivers who have them fitted. There are other articles regarding 'crash for cash' and 'flash-for-cash' claims!

A few years ago I was involved in a minor insurance incident, the other driver claims I reversed in to them which I did not. It was their word against mine. If I had a camera fitted then there would be no question that it was the other drivers fault and they drove into me as this would be recorded as the video evidence.

It is well known there is much higher risk of a driver having an accident whist holding a handset and having a conservation on the phone. This is why it is illegal to operate a mobile phone whilst driving. Its an accident waiting to happen. Surely if you can prevent an accident this is better than some driver losing control of their car mounting the kerb and killing a innocent pedestrian.

The guy in question who was operating a mobile phone whilst driving navigated around two roundabouts single handed without using indicators.

The omission of a signal when negotiating a roundabout might not always be a bad thing!