Another reason it could be worthwhile having a dashcam?

[looking_to_buy]

Ok, fortunately not quite as bad as mk4gtiturbo's footage in that no-one got hurt and nothing got damaged, but I'll be honest, I probably crapped myself a lot more than he did!

 

I think if I'd been hit by a lorry from behind exiting to take the M6(S), I wouldn't be alive, let alone have a camera that would've survived impact, but basically, this old guy nearly got me wiped out today.

 

Opinions welcome. For those that aren't aware, this is the junction between the M56 and the M6. The road splits off into two lanes (M6 North in the left lane, and M6 South in the right).

 

 

My question is, can I do anything this driver? (is there an easy way to report them???) It was an old man and I worry they are a hazard to other drivers... or should I just move on? As I passed them, they looked at me as if they didn't know what my problem was? (or did I just massively overact)

 

PS - sorry for the language

Edited 14 April, 2015 by looking_to_buy

[Neily03]

Hopefully the moron will take himself out soon enough without taking anyone else with him.

[Chris29]

Sure he has committed an offence for a start! Solid white lines around that hatching, do not cross....

You'll be glad of those big brakes,very very lucky you didn't get shunted.

[steved83]

Offence of crossing verge complete at the very least £100 & 3pp in old money.

[doctored]

Send it to the police and see what happens

[Pumatron]

Idiots like these are one of the reasons my car has such little mileage. I leave the car at home and take the train (as it's an option for me). Last week I nearly got wiped out on an A road as car/driver decided they wanted to drive my side of the road whilst traveling in other direction because they were on their phone. Driving scares me. Never used to but driving standards seem to of dropped right off!

[Garnett]

I did an emergency services driving course a few years back. Roadcraft teaches you to work much further up the road than normal driving. When you have the blue lights on people do very silly things when they see you without thinking. We were always told to think on behalf of others and keep ourselves under control with all the adrenalin that high speed work gives you.

 

In this case I would have honestly had the hazard lights on before passing the lorry with a view to potentially saving this persons life. Fault comes much later. Keeping yourself calm and under control will save your life. No point being in the right and in a coffin!

 

You did ask!

 

Garnett

[Aurial]

Dangerous Driving would be the offence in that his driving fell far below that expected of a reasonable and competent driver and the safety of other road users was put at risk as a result of his actions.

You can report it to the police and provide a copy of your footage.

Mandatory disqualifications and three to eleven penalty points.

[looking_to_buy]

I did an emergency services driving course a few years back. Roadcraft teaches you to work much further up the road than normal driving. When you have the blue lights on people do very silly things when they see you without thinking. We were always told to think on behalf of others and keep ourselves under control with all the adrenalin that high speed work gives you.

 

In this case I would have honestly had the hazard lights on before passing the lorry with a view to potentially saving this persons life. Fault comes much later. Keeping yourself calm and under control will save your life. No point being in the right and in a coffin!

 

You did ask!

 

Garnett

 

I can see how your awareness is raised when you have blue lights on and are driving in a different pattern to the rest of the traffic (ie. forcing your way through, sometimes at speed)... I suspect it would be very difficult to drive in that state all the time though (for example, your driving would be more relaxed, should your lights not be on)

 

It's difficult to tell from YouTubes downscaling, but he pulled in at the last minute just before the car in front went past, and he had time to swerve... because of the curve of the road, I saw the reaction, and him a bit later and could tell he was actually edging into the lane. I knew I'd gone past the lorry, but wasn't 100% confident (without looking over my shoulder) how far I'd gone past, so my eyes fixed on the danger in front, and also checked my rear view mirror to ensure it was safe to stop.

 

I guess the reality of a potential incident occuring, and the split second decision making can't be altered no matter what you do - and the theory you are taught, is great yet in reality not always possible to put into practice as your instinct would overtake it.

 

Interesting thoughts though

[looking_to_buy]

So I would feel guilty as hell if this guy continued to be a danger to other road users... what is the best way to bring this to the dibbles attention?

[Aurial]

looking_to_buy, I don't know where you live compared to where this took place, but the force local to the offence location would be responsible for dealing with it. You'll know better than me which force is local to it I'm sure, but if you don't know yourself there are various was to find out online.

You could either attend a police station armed with a copy of the footage, contact the force by email or even write to them with a dvd copy of your footage. The traffic division will be responsible for prosecuting him.

[Neily03]

I can't see the Police being interesting to be honest....

[skovirg]

Although mad, it constitutes a minor traffic offence. Hence:

 

"In relation to the concept of prosecution of mobile phone and other minor traffic offences from video submissions where and accident has not occurred, the ACPO Roads Policing following guidance form the Crown Prosecution Service and expert advice from Road Policing bodies, concluded that prosecution for offences based solely upon video evidence submitted by members of the public are unlikely. The value of evidence that has not been seized and stored according to the police business processes is limited form an evidential point of view" ACPO

[skovirg]

I can't see the Police being interesting to be honest....

 

They weren't interested when thieves stole the contents of 300 safety deposit boxes in the diamond quarter last week so I can't see this guy having his collar felt. Having said that, stranger things have happened and police priorities are sometimes baffling!

[devonutopia]

I'd be reporting that for being a hazard to themselves and other road users.  May well need license revoking or similar, maybe on medical grounds.

[philwoodphoto]

I'd report it as they could have been caught doing something else later, say they'd caused another accident a few miles down the road and it turned out they were drunk? This footage could then become part of a larger investigation.

[looking_to_buy]

Cheers all - I have made Cheshire Police aware of it and it's down to them...

 

As mentioned, I wouldn't expect prosecution at all but even if they just send a PCSO around to make the driver aware of their actions and the possible consequences, it would be good

[Aurial]

Cheers all - I have made Cheshire Police aware of it and it's down to them...

As mentioned, I wouldn't expect prosecution at all but even if they just send a PCSO around to make the driver aware of their actions and the possible consequences, it would be good

Nice one. I took the liberty of showing your footage to a mate of mine who's in traffic and he confirmed it would be Dangerous Driving. That's one of the most serious traffic offences so you may be surprised at how seriously they take it. Either way, come back and let us know how you get on.

They weren't interested when thieves stole the contents of 300 safety deposit boxes in the diamond quarter last week so I can't see this guy having his collar felt. Having said that, stranger things have happened and police priorities are sometimes baffling!

Going off topic a bit, but my girlfriends friend is a cop and has worked on the cordons for the Holborn fire a couple of times lately. She was over at the weekend as they all went out on the pi$$ and I was chatting to her about it.

She said that alarms were going off constantly throughout both nights she was there at loads of businesses due to electrical outages caused by the fire. She said if she heard 50 alarms a night it was probably an understatement. She also said that even if they had attended (and she didn't know if they had) all they could do is check the outside of the building for signs of a breakin and there wouldn't have been any anyway so it would have changed nothing.

Why aren't the press asking questions of the keyholder as to why they didn't attend? You have to remember two things about the media:

1) They want the information the police have about a story, but the police won't give it to them because it could prejudice a trial.

2) They have to write something about the incident to sell their paper, and the more dramatic it is the better. So they try to pick faults and attribute blame, despite having no knowledge of any facts.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Garnett]

I will be interested to know if the police do proceed with this, what will happen to your camera and SD card? Will hey be happy to accept copies (will need to be legally certified as evidence) or will they impound you camera and SD card as evidence? I suspect it won't stand up in court and there is no chain of evidence.

[Aurial]

I will be interested to know if the police do proceed with this, what will happen to your camera and SD card? Will hey be happy to accept copies (will need to be legally certified as evidence) or will they impound you camera and SD card as evidence? I suspect it won't stand up in court and there is no chain of evidence.

Bare in mind that the vast majority of CCTV footage in existence is not police generated. It mainly comes from shops, petrol stations or other commercial or business premises, home owners who have fitted their own systems, council CCTV systems on the high streets, buses, trains, hospitals, the list goes on. Even mobile phone footage is perfectly admissible. Most fixed systems now are digital. They record to a hard drive inside the device and can burn off copies of footage as needed. The police can seize the machine if needed, but copies are fine and this won't be any different in the OP's case.

 

All that is required to fulfil the evidential chain is that the footage can be traced back from the courtroom to every place it has been since it was created and who has handled it. The OP will make a statements along the lines of "On day/date/time I was making XYZ journey. When I was at X junction of the M6 XYZ happened. I recorded the incident on my BadgerQuest 200 in-car camera system. The date and time shown on the footage are correct as they are obtained from the GPS system/is fast or slow by X minutes. I made a copy of the footage and handed it to police on day/date. I produce this footage as my exhibit."

 

The officer who receives the footage will make a statement saying that he has received it at day/date from the OP, and at every stage between that point and when/if it reaches a court its location and who handles it will be recorded, thus fulfilling the evidential chain. 1000's of hours per week of police time must be used up for what seems like such a simple task just in case when it gets to court the defence say that the footage was handed to Industrial Light and Magic and the car was added into the footage. If the police can't show that didn't happen then case dismissed.

[Garnett]

Aurial

 

That is my point really. My employer handles lots of CCTV for the police. It is hugely time consuming and you will not be able to email this to them.

 

I very much doubt that the police will have the capacity to deal with non accident incidents like this.

 

Interesting to see.

 

Garnett

[Aurial]

Aurial

 

That is my point really. My employer handles lots of CCTV for the police. It is hugely time consuming and you will not be able to email this to them.

 

I very much doubt that the police will have the capacity to deal with non accident incidents like this.

 

Interesting to see.

 

Garnett

Garnett,

 

You raise a very good point about capacity. There are around 10,000 fewer police officers since 5 years ago and many forces, including your own Devon and Cornwall, have scaled their traffic policing back radically as a result. If the current government get back in again they have already indicated they want to reduce the numbers by a further ten to twenty thousand. I think if that is the case traffic policing will all but disappear entirely. Regardless of who the next government are though I still think cuts will come.

[Orville]

Police will not be interested. They have too many actual accidents and crimes to keep them busy.

 

Modern road Policing is performed predominantly by Speed Cameras and Private Security Firms (clampers and traffic wardens). Anything that falls outside of these areas is generally ignored unless someone is seriously hurt or killed. God bless the Tories and their Lib Dem lackeys for dismembering Public Services.

Edited 15 April, 2015 by Orville

[doctored]

Dashcam footage has been used in prosecutions, I believe lots of drivers have got points for mobile phone use thanks to passing motorists

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-want-dashcam-drivers-send-2992349

[lpt100]

SWMBO suggests that Cheshire Police tend to be fairly proactive with traffic offences . . .  

 

Plus if this person is old/blind etc they'll be under yearly review, even with no prosecution this would probably still count against them?