This is a very slippery slope.

[Deleted member 68495]

Link: Dutiful or just spying?

I have a dashcam in my car in case of disputes in the event of an accident but the police supplying people with dashcams to use them to catch people on their behalf does not sit well with me. I ride a motorcycle and bikes do need as much room to get past someone on the road, but I can imagine people ignorant of bike behaviour will be sending videos to the police claiming dangerous driving. I used to be a truck driver and got into many a scrape (not always literally) because of foolish car drivers but now they have been given carte blanche to make vexatious claims of dangerous driving because their own driving is not up to standard. I envisage a lot of malicious attempts occurring. At the very least, I would hope that there is a camera and microphone looking inward and listening to the activities of the driver of the dashcam-bearing vehicle

Is this part of what might appear to be an ongoing plan to turn the public into a modern version of the Hitler Youth where the young were encouraged to rat out their parents and friends.

There are dangerous drivers out there, but there are dangerous and uncaring cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians (especially), who is looking for them?

When one can't even get a copper to turn up to investigate a burglary, I find it somewhat galling to find they are handing out expensive dashcams to get other people to do their work for them.

 

[Deleted member 26215]

Link: Dutiful or just spying?

I have a dashcam in my car in case of disputes in the event of an accident but the police supplying people with dashcams to use them to catch people on their behalf does not sit well with me. I ride a motorcycle and bikes do need as much room to get past someone on the road, but I can imagine people ignorant of bike behaviour will be sending videos to the police claiming dangerous driving. I used to be a truck driver and got into many a scrape (not always literally) because of foolish car drivers but now they have been given carte blanche to make vexatious claims of dangerous driving because their own driving is not up to standard. I envisage a lot of malicious attempts occurring. At the very least, I would hope that there is a camera and microphone looking inward and listening to the activities of the driver of the dashcam-bearing vehicle

Is this part of what might appear to be an ongoing plan to turn the public into a modern version of the Hitler Youth where the young were encouraged to rat out their parents and friends.

There are dangerous drivers out there, but there are dangerous and uncaring cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians (especially), who is looking for them?

When one can't even get a copper to turn up to investigate a burglary, I find it somewhat galling to find they are handing out expensive dashcams to get other people to do their work for them.

Well, if you drive to the speed limits and adhere to the Highway Code, then you have nothing to worry about, have you.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

I have front and rear cameras on my bike and wouldn’t hesitate to submit videos to the police if I saw unlawful or dangerous driving.
Thankfully I have only had to do it once, after which the police confirmed that action would be taken.

 

[Mr Bump]

I am kind of from the camp of being quite ok with that, roads are getting appalling and having a few mobile cameras sounds a good think, bikes make up a tiny minority i think still under 1% of road users but we certainly need to sort out the insane overtakes and anti social aspect of car drivers. I think there is a site where you can upload your own videos for the police to review.

 

[woof woof]

Peoples experiences will vary but my pet hate is two wheeled transport and I'm all for any measures which could either get them to ride responsibly or get them off the road. I'd be happy with either. When driving I can have a car in view for quite some time and see nothing amiss and indeed often have longer car journeys during which I see nothing objectionable by four wheeled things at all but I very often I see those on two wheels do things which should lead to a fine or prosecution even though they may only be in sight for a short time and are I'd guess a minority of road users.

So yup, if offered a dashcam I'd happily forward any dangerous or idiotic driving to the police but sadly there'll be no way of identifying and tracing some car / van drivers or even most two wheeled offenders. Plus I guess that just as there aren't enough police to police the streets or the roads if flooded with dashcam footage there wont be enough to follow it through often enough to make a difference.

Oh, and sorry but comparing this to the Hitler Youth is just, silly.

 

[Tringa]

I don't see a problem with it. There might be some people who provide dashcam footage maliciously, but it is the police who will review it and decide if any action needs to be taken.

Dave

 

[Krisstiffer]

I don’t have an issue with people submitting dash cam footage for review..... Although I think that the submitter needs to include at least 10 minutes of footage leading up to the incident they’re reporting to show context and demonstrate that they themselves are driving/riding safely.
Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

 

[Marc]

Is this part of what might appear to be an ongoing plan to turn the public into a modern version of the Hitler Youth where the young were encouraged to rat out their parents and friends.

You're comparing people who ratted out friends and family who would then have been either imprisoned or killed with someone potentially getting a fine for sriving like a bell end?

Seriously, give your head a wobble!

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I'm not going to dwell on the Hitler Youth comment, it was just that. I'm also not going to get into a discussion on who does, or does not, like motorbikes. If you want to discuss that, put it in another thread.

Right, back to the topic in hand.

Well I see no one is that bothered, which I find surprising. Once this becomes commonplace, what will the police want people to inform on next? Bonfire burning before 7pm, sounding your horn after 11pm, swearing in public, wearing an offensive T shirt. Sounds silly? It probably is, but you'd probably also get thrashed for a lot less in Afghanistan now. Think that can't happen here? I hope you are right.

We are spied on quite enough in this country, I believe we are the third most watched population in the world if the number of surveillance cameras figures is true Top ten countries for cameras .

People here say this dashcam thing a good idea and perhaps it is, up to a point. But who is totally innocent of a driving offence -- running over a solid white line, suddenly braking for a rabbit and causing an accident, being slightly over the speed limit, going past someone on the motorway on the inside when traffic is slow, taking a quick look at your watch or eating an apple behind the wheel? No one. All these things could be caught on a dashcam and sent off to the police as dangerous driving. They may not prosecute, this time, but they are on the radar now.

Ever had an accident? Most of the time a minor prang is dealt with by insurance companies but hey, why not upload the video of the incident to the police because you are in a bad mood and get them points on their licence and a fine? Don't forget, most motoring offences are crime/verdict/ punishment all in one convenient and cheap package which improves crime figures.

So be careful what you wish for, it could be you on the other side of that dashcam.

 

[munch]

If I accept your premise that we are the 3rd most-watched country in the world. Can you honestly say it has had any great impact on you personally so far?

As for police accepting dashcam footage, they have been doing it for a while now. Just because dashcam footage is sent in doesn't mean it will always be used. Nor is it solely aimed at motorcyclists. I personally have no issue with it if you drive/ride like an idiot then why shouldn't you be brought to account?

So be careful what you wish for, it could be you on the other side of that dashcam.

The other side is that maybe the use of dashcams may just calm some people down.

I have a dashcam and I have it mainly to "protect myself" from silly insurance claims.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Well, if you drive to the speed limits and adhere to the Highway Code, then you have nothing to worry about, have you.

Like everyone does, all the time, without exception? You might try very hard but no one can do this all the time.

Oh, and sorry but comparing this to the Hitler Youth is just, silly.

it was a government inspired thing of the time and who knows whether something similar could happen here if this creeping informing trend goes on. The novel 1984 might have seemed unlikely when it was written but a lot of that stuff happens now.

Seriously, give your head a wobble!

I haven't aimed a personal insult at you, please afford me the same consideration.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

If I accept your premise that we are the 3rd most-watched country in the world. Can you honestly say it has had any great impact on you personally so far?

I can't know. But then I've never taken part in politics, or protest marches and I've never applied for a sensitive government job. If I did any of these things I might just find out.

 

[Marc]

I haven't aimed a personal insult at you, please afford me the same consideration.

And I haven't aimed a personal insult at you either.

 

[munch]

I can't know. But then I've never taken part in politics, or protest marches and I've never applied for a sensitive government job. If I did any of these things I might just find out.

And in the real world people just get on with their lives.

 

[rick448]

Link: Dutiful or just spying?

I have a dashcam in my car in case of disputes in the event of an accident but the police supplying people with dashcams to use them to catch people on their behalf does not sit well with me. I ride a motorcycle and bikes do need as much room to get past someone on the road, but I can imagine people ignorant of bike behaviour will be sending videos to the police claiming dangerous driving. I used to be a truck driver and got into many a scrape (not always literally) because of foolish car drivers but now they have been given carte blanche to make vexatious claims of dangerous driving because their own driving is not up to standard. I envisage a lot of malicious attempts occurring. At the very least, I would hope that there is a camera and microphone looking inward and listening to the activities of the driver of the dashcam-bearing vehicle

Is this part of what might appear to be an ongoing plan to turn the public into a modern version of the Hitler Youth where the young were encouraged to rat out their parents and friends.

There are dangerous drivers out there, but there are dangerous and uncaring cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians (especially), who is looking for them?

When one can't even get a copper to turn up to investigate a burglary, I find it somewhat galling to find they are handing out expensive dashcams to get other people to do their work for them.

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though I am not going to get into another argument on here about this type of thing. I just wanted you to know that not everyone is in favour of this initiative.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though I am not going to get into another argument on here about this type of thing. I just wanted you to know that not everyone is in favour of this initiative.

And likewise. While dashcams are a good idea for self-protection when it comes to sorting out blame in accidents, it would feel intensely oppressive if one were to have to been looking over one's shoulder in case one has accidentally committed some minor (or major) technical transgression that had no practical consequence.

 

[munch]

And likewise. While dashcams are a good idea for self-protection when it comes to sorting out blame in accidents, it would feel intensely oppressive if one were to have to been looking over one's shoulder in case one has accidentally committed some minor (or major) technical transgression that had no practical consequence.

so what major transgressions do you feel it is OK with?

And by no practical consequence, do you mean there isn't a collision?

 

[JohnC6]

I don’t have an issue with people submitting dash cam footage for review..... Although I think that the submitter needs to include at least 10 minutes of footage leading up to the incident they’re reporting to show context and demonstrate that they themselves are driving/riding safely.
Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

They already do this with local residents who are willing to help support them regarding speeding. To save me explaining it you can read about how Avon & Somerset engage the public.

Community SpeedWatch | Avon and Somerset Police

Raise a community speed concern and join your local Community SpeedWatch to help improve road safety. Find out more about SpeedWatch in your area.

www.avonandsomerset.police.uk

To address your point..from the article.

A team of local residents who are willing to volunteer a small amount of time each week are trained and issued with speed detection equipment to monitor speeds.

Could I gently point out to you that figures regarding road deaths and serious injury for 2020 in West Yorkshire ,where you live, amounted to 648. Lockdown affected the figures of course but from January to November of 2019 49 fatalities were recorded along with 3280 injuries. Bearing in mind that serious injury covers hospital in-patient, fractures, damage to internal organs and life-changing injuries. In 2018 there was concern that fatalities had doubled to 85. In July last year you had a Safer Roads operation called Operation Snap in which a portal was established where drivers can upload their dash cam footage.

I see that you don't have an issue with dash cam footage being submitted but you think it should have 10 minutes of footage to show context and demonstrate that they are driving safely. I don't understand the logic of that tbh. Does a driver really need to do that just to show that as he/she was about to drive through a junction on a green light when another motorist drove through having gone through a red light or went through a traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossing. What about a driver overtaking and crossing double white lines travelling towards a driver and swerves back in just in time to avoid a collision or the same scenario but coming out of a blind bend ?

The footage submitted will show the speed of the car that the reporting driver was in because they will,I'm sure, take it back a few minutes to get a picture of conditions..certainly not 10 minutes. Just sit for 10 minutes doing nothing and unless you're in heavy traffic it covers quite a distance and is irrelevant.

 

[the black fox]

Where are they giving away these free dash cams ,, mines getting a bit old now ?

 

[Deleted member 68495]

They already do this with local residents who are willing to help support them regarding speeding. To save me explaining it you can read about how Avon & Somerset engage the public.

But in these cases, the 'offender' is not prosecuted, he/she may, after two or three infringements (depending on local decisions), be sent a letter informing them of their speed transgression. The police can investigate further but the Speedwatch people cannot cause a driver to be prosecuted. It would appear however, that a driver CAN be prosecuted in the event of the police receiving a suitably condemning video clip. Personally, I would have thought a good lawyer could easily get a person off but there is mention of successful prosecution in the link in my original post.

Where are they giving away these free dash cams ,, mines getting a bit old now ?

Devon and Cornwall. Where I live. And no, they haven't given me one.

 

[munch]

Devon and Cornwall. Where I live. And no, they haven't given me one.

They have "given away" 170 to go in vehicles owned by the likes of the water company and the RNLI hardly a "free for all"

 

[Krisstiffer]

Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

They already do this with local residents who are willing to help support them regarding speeding. To save me explaining it you can read about how Avon & Somerset engage the public.

Community SpeedWatch | Avon and Somerset Police

Raise a community speed concern and join your local Community SpeedWatch to help improve road safety. Find out more about SpeedWatch in your area.

www.avonandsomerset.police.uk

To address your point..from the article.

A team of local residents who are willing to volunteer a small amount of time each week are trained and issued with speed detection equipment to monitor speeds.
I see that you don't have an issue with dash cam footage being submitted but you think it should have 10 minutes of footage to show context and demonstrate that they are driving safely. I don't understand the logic of that tbh.

Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

They already do this with local residents who are willing to help support them regarding speeding. To save me explaining it you can read about how Avon & Somerset engage the public.

Community SpeedWatch | Avon and Somerset Police

Raise a community speed concern and join your local Community SpeedWatch to help improve road safety. Find out more about SpeedWatch in your area.

www.avonandsomerset.police.uk

To address your point..from the article.

A team of local residents who are willing to volunteer a small amount of time each week are trained and issued with speed detection equipment to monitor speeds.

Could I gently point out to you that figures regarding road deaths and serious injury for 2020 in West Yorkshire ,where you live, amounted to 648. Lockdown affected the figures of course but from January to November of 2019 49 fatalities were recorded along with 3280 injuries. Bearing in mind that serious injury covers hospital in-patient, fractures, damage to internal organs and life-changing injuries. In 2018 there was concern that fatalities had doubled to 85. In July last year you had a Safer Roads operation called Operation Snap in which a portal was established where drivers can upload their dash cam footage.

I see that you don't have an issue with dash cam footage being submitted but you think it should have 10 minutes of footage to show context and demonstrate that they are driving safely. I don't understand the logic of that tbh. Does a driver really need to do that just to show that as he/she was about to drive through a junction on a green light when another motorist drove through having gone through a red light or went through a traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossing. What about a driver overtaking and crossing double white lines travelling towards a driver and swerves back in just in time to avoid a collision or the same scenario but coming out of a blind bend ?

The footage submitted will show the speed of the car that the reporting driver was in because they will,I'm sure, take it back a few minutes to get a picture of conditions..certainly not 10 minutes. Just sit for 10 minutes doing nothing and unless you're in heavy traffic it covers quite a distance and is irrelevant.

Before I respond to individual points do not conflate my concerns about the methods employed with a disregard for road safety. I hear what you say about road deaths and injuries in my area and care about those - as I care about KSIs in ANY area - I’m a road user after all and want safe roads too.
In terms of CSWs - the key difference is that the police DO NOT recruit people - communities need to apply to set up a group and then can only operate in specific areas as dictated by the police/council. Also it’s not necessarily the police that fund the equipment. And as has been pointed out the information gathered by CSW groups cannot directly lead to the prosecution of a member of the public. They act within a tight code as laid out for them when the group is established. So in my mind quite a bit different to sending out a load of dash cams to people who just happen to be employed in certain jobs.
As for the 10 minutes - on my travels I see just as much bad driving from drivers with dash cams as those without. So in my mind if someone feels moved to submit someone else’s driving/riding for possible prosecution then their behaviour should be held to the same account too - would be all too easy for someone to be driving like a cock and upload their encounter with another cock. So if you’re going to effectively accuse someone else of illegal driving then having a short snippet of your own behaviour being available for scrutiny seems quite legitimate to me. People in glass houses and all that......

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I have looked into this further and it would appear that the simple uploading of a video to the police website may not be the end of the matter. The website dc.police.uk/opsnap gives details of the things a potential informer might have to do. These include having their own driving style analysed and they may have to appear in court in person and face the defendant. There are a shedload of other rules and statements of information that have to be considered too. I think one would have to be pretty determined or particularly vindictive to consider this. I think most people will wish ill on the other driver and leave it at that. Time is a great healer after all and what seemed like an anger-inducing thing yesterday is probably just one of those things today.

Munch: Not sure you are referring to me but I didn't say they were giving them away to all, I just said I lived in Devon/Cornwall and they haven't given one to me. I already have one anyway, don't move an inch without it switched on and it's saved me some grief a few times.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm not sure there is a problem if Dashcan footage is submitted directly to the police. But I do have issue where cameras are used as a tool predominantly to bully and the footage is used to promote a YouTube channel (for example)

 

[JohnC6]

Link: Dutiful or just spying?

I have a dashcam in my car in case of disputes in the event of an accident but the police supplying people with dashcams to use them to catch people on their behalf does not sit well with me. I ride a motorcycle and bikes do need as much room to get past someone on the road, but I can imagine people ignorant of bike behaviour will be sending videos to the police claiming dangerous driving. I used to be a truck driver and got into many a scrape (not always literally) because of foolish car drivers but now they have been given carte blanche to make vexatious claims of dangerous driving because their own driving is not up to standard. I envisage a lot of malicious attempts occurring. At the very least, I would hope that there is a camera and microphone looking inward and listening to the activities of the driver of the dashcam-bearing vehicle

Is this part of what might appear to be an ongoing plan to turn the public into a modern version of the Hitler Youth where the young were encouraged to rat out their parents and friends.
There are dangerous drivers out there, but there are dangerous and uncaring cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians (especially), who is looking for them?

When one can't even get a copper to turn up to investigate a burglary, I find it somewhat galling to find they are handing out expensive dashcams to get other people to do their work for them.

Martin...the first thing that struck me as I read your post was that quote..'the police supply dash cams to use them to catch people on their behalf. Well, no. First off, they'd prefer to do it themselves but they don't have the resources and in the meantime the road carnage increases but more importantly they do it, not on behalf of themselves but on behalf of you and me and all motorists on the road so that we stay safe. How often do we see an errant driver and wish there was a patrol car there ?

Re motorbikes which you don't want to involve...Alan is, I'm sure, referring to the youngsters who carry out some incredibly stupid and life-threatening manoeuvres. The guys/gals with the big bikes are fine and it's them that are at risk especially at junctions.

You say that drivers can make vexatious claims of dangerous driving. The footage will show if it's dangerous or not. The police will only process the more serious incidents recorded. It's all they have time to do and bear in mind it's not just the police involved but the CPS and the courts. Can it really be the case that motorists will make those vexatious claims of dangerous driving on the grounds that their own driving is not up to standard ? That doesn't make sense.

Here's an interesting fact. re your Hiter comment which you don't want to dwell on, wisely, because the moment anyone invokes Hitler they lose the argument. For a good while now there's been an internet law called Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies. It can't be dismissed as 'just a comment' ,which is what you've said to Marc, because it's fundamental to the position you take on the issue. The only divergence from Godwin's Law is that he said that the longer a discussion goes on the sooner Hitler is invoked but you introduced it at the start.

Putting Hitler Youth to one side you say that dash cams will encourage drivers to 'rat' on other drivers' bad driving. Good. The rest of us need them to be held to account which will almost certainly save someone from death or serious injury. By not doing so when a driver has incriminating footage is to condone it. You acknowledge that there are dangerous drivers out there but mitigate that by aiming at cyclists who, in any collision caused by them, would almost certainly come off worse unless they hit a pedestrian and even then they could still come off worse as they have the momentum. Dangerous and uncaring horse riders ? I have never ridden a horse on a road but my experience is the rider is most concerned about the manner in which a vehicle is driven past it..either from behind or infront. They're not going to put their horse at risk of a collision with a vehicle whereby there would only be one loser. Pedestrians ? Ok..so a pedestrian lurches into the road as a result of being drunk or just forgets to check for traffic and causes a collision. The footage will show this and all that it will do is to prove some negligence on the part of the pedestrian in which case the pedestrian’s compensation will have a percentage deducted to account for their contribution to the accident. It's called ‘contributory negligence’


You're rightly excercised that the police "can't even turn up at a burglary" . It's not the fault of the police they don't have the resources to be able to attend every burglary reported. Whilst crime has soared police numbers have crashed. There's only one outcome for that. In relation to Traffic police there's been a 20% reduction since 2010. Amazing coming from the Party of Law and Order.

I see ,in addition to Hitler, you've invoked the Taliban in your second post. At least you're contemporary

The biggest take-away from this discussion is that prosecution will only result from serious breaches of road safety.

Infact, here's a section of an article by Honest John who I lay great store by when researching cars to buy.

The greatest number of potentially prosecutable offences in 2019 were submitted to The Met Police, a total of 8082. Surrey had the second-highest tally with 3542, followed by West Midlands – 3242 – in the third spot.


In October 2020, dash cam manufacturer - Nextbase - revealed that more than half of the videos uploaded to its safety portal have resulted in further police action. Favoured by police for saving an average of eight hours per case, Nextbase says its platform had saved these forces at least 170,000 hours.

The footage submitted to police related to the following offences: dangerous driving, careless driving/driving without due care and attention, driving too close to cyclists, contravening red traffic lights, contravening double white lines, contravening ‘no entry’ signs, illegal use of a handheld mobile phone and evidence of vehicles apparently without MOTs.

RAC road safety spokesman Simon Williams said: “Even before the decline in the number of roads police enforcing traffic offences, law-abiding drivers were often frustrated that there was never an officer there to deal with infringements they witnessed.”

 

[munch]

Munch: Not sure you are referring to me but I didn't say they were giving them away to all, I just said I lived in Devon/Cornwall and they haven't given one to me. I already have one anyway, don't move an inch without it switched on and it's saved me some grief a few times.

The black fox said: "Where are they giving away these free dash cams" to which you replied "Devon and Cornwall where I live"

Forgive me if I am wrong, but your response certainly implied that to be the case.

 

[JohnC6]

I'm not sure there is a problem if Dashcan footage is submitted directly to the police. But I di have issue where cameras are used as a tool predominantly to bully and the footage is used to promote a YouTube channel (for example)

Good point.

 

[JohnC6]

The black fox said: "Where are they giving away these free dash cams" to which you replied "Devon and Cornwall where I live"

Forgive me if I am wrong, but your response certainly implied that to be the case.

Yes. You're right. Not only the reply to Jeff but if you click on the link in Martin's original post this is what you see and it's in bold type too.

FREE dashcams will be handed out to businesses and groups in Devon and Cornwall as police crack down on dangerous driving.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

The black fox said: "Where are they giving away these free dash cams" to which you replied "Devon and Cornwall where I live"

Forgive me if I am wrong, but your response certainly implied that to be the case.

I fear you are using a strange logic along the lines of 'carrots give you good eyesight, rabbits eat carrots, rabbits have good eyesight'.

In the same vein:

They are giving away free cameras in Devon and Cornwall
I live in Devon and Cornwall
They are giving me a free dashcam

Neither saying is true. In the article to which I referred in my original post it clearly says that the police are giving away 170 dashcams mostly to organisations such as the RNLI and South West Water. I don't believe at any point I said that they were giving everyone in Devon and Cornwall a free dashcam.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Here's an interesting fact. re your Hiter comment which you don't want to dwell on, wisely, because the moment anyone invokes Hitler they lose the argument. For a good while now there's been an internet law called Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies. It can't be dismissed as 'just a comment' ,which is what you've said to Marc, because it's fundamental to the position you take on the issue. The only divergence from Godwin's Law is that he said that the longer a discussion goes on the sooner Hitler is invoked but you introduced it at the start.

You are probably right as most people can't see past 'The World at War' and the Yesterday TV channel. I often play a game on line called Counter Strike Global Offensive. In this game you can call yourself anything you want within reason and for a time I had the name 'Grammar Nazi' because of my attempts, successful or otherwise, to speak properly, use the correct syntax and especially the correct grammar. Grammar Nazi is a phrase often used to describe people like me and TBH is something of which I am rather proud. Steam did not see it that way and presumably after some complaints, the name was withdrawn and I had to choose another, again, presumably, because of the link the word Nazi has with activities during the war. Oddly, when I changed my name ironically firstly to Stalin and subsequently to Vlad the Impaler, not a complaint was heard.

I might add that I have a T shirt with the words 'You can't have fewer petrol, so you can't have less items' printed on the front. On the back, in large letters, it says 'Grammar Nazi'.

 

[Krisstiffer]

Oddly, when I changed my name ironically firstly to Stalin and subsequently to Vlad the Impaler, not a complaint was heard.

Completely off-topic but sometimes I’ll have a look to see if any of the wildlife parks with deer and antelope have the animal sponsorship things where you can name the animal you sponsor.
Would be great to tell people I’ve adopted “Vlad the Impala”

 

[Mr Badger]

Dashcams and motorbikes... that reminds me of an incident a few weeks ago (that, if I'd been a vindictive sort with nothing better to do, I could have posted on YouTube)... I was driving along a regular route I take and found I was following what appeared to be a more elderly bloke (I'd make an educated guess at 60+) riding a large, American style, motorbike, complete with paniers and fairings (most likely a Japanese job pretending to be a Harley Davidson Electra Glide - you probably get the picture).

Said bike was doing about 28 MPH in a 30mph zone, but wandering around the carriageway a bit too much for my liking, so I kept my distance. We then passed into a 40mph zone, where the bike starts doing 25mph. I maintained my 'even safer than usual' distance, suspecting the bike may be suffering from engine issues. We then pass into a national speed limit zone (60 mph limit) whereupon the bike travels at between 25mph and 40mph with no apparent speed correlation with bends, visibility splays, or other such road conditions.

I maintain my safe distance and we finally reach a set of traffic lights, where the chap positions his bike to the right hand side of the carriageway, but not signalling. Still maintaining a safe distance in case I have to negotiate my way around a broken down motorbike; the lights change and nothing happens for a few moments, he then sets off straight ahead, with the bike pulling away seemingly effortlessly, with no signs or sounds of engine trouble!

By now I have good reason to suspect that the erratic behaviour is down to the rider rather than the bike. I followed at a safe distance, with the bike accelerating up to 40mph to round a right hand bend, with the rider positioning the bike so far over to the right that the wheels were only a foot or so away from the double white lines down the centre of the road.

This meant that, in leaning into the bend, the rider's head and upper body were well over the white lines and into the path of oncoming traffic! I pulled back even further to provide sufficient room to avoid colliding with the wreckage and body parts if the worst happened! Unsurprisingly, just after the apex of the bend the biker had to veer suddenly to the left to avoid an oncoming car! Cue travelling at 25mph again until the crossroads, where the bike pulled up, after weaving to a halt, in the middle of the carriageway. Nothing coming, but we waited about 2 mins before the rider finally decided to turn left, wobbling off without signalling. I'm afraid my patience had run rather thin by that time so I announced my disapproval at his road manners with a long blast of my car horn, and gesticulated to the chap that I thought he was a t*sser.

I wouldn't mind, but stuck to the right hand side of his white, open faced, helmet was a camera! Not that I'd have appeared on it, unless he could have turned his head like an owl to look backwards (although I'm sure that remains a distinct possibility if he continues to negotiate right-hand bends like that into oncoming traffic!) but I couldn't ignore the irony! I don't think I've ever witnessed a more inept and incapable motorcyclist.

So do vehicle cameras make for safer motoring? Probably not, but at least the footage from mine might have been able to serve as valuable evidence in a coroner's court if that biker had not been able to avoid that oncoming car!

 

[Deleted member 68495]

It is a sad fact that people get old and can't do what they thought they could anymore and I expect this biker should have had his last ride years before. I notice as I get older, both on my bike and in my car, that crossing a busy road is a much more measured affair. I can tell that twenty years ago I would have made it into that gap but now in my late sixties, I am aware that my reactions are not what they were and that I should probably await a bigger gap. I hope I recognise when I'm too old to drive or ride at all although I expect my younger wife will tell me and trust me, I will believe her. My dad was out with my mum one day (both now deceased) when my dad pulled out to overtake a car and there was a car coming the other way which he narrowly missed. Mother said 'you didn't see that car did you?'. He shook his head, he never drove again.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

To put all of this into context, perhaps we should look at the numbers.

Road deaths have decreased steadily from 3,421 in 1998 to 1,752 in 2019. At the same time, serious injuries have reduced from 41,000 to 25,945 (although the latter figure is disputed and may actually be as high as 30,144). Less serious injuries dropped from 281,000 to 125,461 (or possibly even 121,262). In any case, the total injury figures came down from 322,000 to 153, 158 - less than half.

There's all sorts of possible reasons for this but it seems reasonable to suppose that the two biggest causes of the decrease may well be safer vehicles and roads made safer by greater surveilance. If this is the case, I'm all for every vehicle being used as a camera platform, to identify and prosecute bad drivers.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Some Police Commissioners just seem to like to look busy, and from what I've read the Devon & Cornwall one is a good example of this, constantly having weird ideas like this one. I think it's just a gimmick but don't have a problem with dashcams being used in this way.

I used to have a very good CCTV system covering the outside of my studio, it not only deterred crime but also recorded it and the police often asked to have a look at the recordings. On one occasion they had been watching a drug dealers car that had very briefly stopped alongside a parked car, they were unable to see whether a deal had taken place and my CCTV showed that it hadn't and proved the innocence of the driver of the parked car. I just don't see the perceived problem, CCTV (whether static or in a vehicle) just records evidence, it's totally impartial and I don't see how it can cause problems for the innocent.

And, if you're one of the people who worry about the march of "Big Brother", the first thing to do is to get rid of your mobile phone, and the second thing to do is to get rid of your modern car if you have one and go back to one that doesn't have modern technology. Oh, and don't link your mobile phone to your computer and don't have a Ring CCTV, Alexa or similar.

 

[Mr Badger]

It is a sad fact that people get old and can't do what they thought they could anymore and I expect this biker should have had his last ride years before.

Or perhaps bought a bike of more manageable size, instead of something the size of a small elephant! I didn't blast my horn at him so much in frustration, more in the hope that if people keep doing that he might take the hint, before he kills or injures himself and/or someone else.

 

[gman]

I don’t have an issue with people submitting dash cam footage for review..... Although I think that the submitter needs to include at least 10 minutes of footage leading up to the incident they’re reporting to show context and demonstrate that they themselves are driving/riding safely.
Where the slippery slope bit is (and think this was the main point of the OP) is the police purchasing and issuing the equipment to groups of the public in order that they act as a deterrent to other members of the public. I’m less comfortable about that aspect......

This was my immediate thought.

I also think it should be a requirement to have at least a rear camera as well for a larger overall perspective as there could be an additional party out of sight of a forward facing camera forcing the alleged offender to take evasive action to avoid a collision etc.

 

[Mr Badger]

This was my immediate thought.

I also think it should be a requirement to have at least a rear camera as well for a larger overall perspective as there could be an additional party out of sight of a forward facing camera forcing the alleged offender to take evasive action to avoid a collision etc.

I wonder if the police will provide witness protection to go with those dashcams, because I think the driver might need it if they capture a dangerous criminal committing a driving offence and hand that evidence in to the police. I believe the camera user will have to make a formal statement to back that video evidence up, and give their full name, address, etc. to count as admissible evidence in a court of law, and perhaps even appear in court to give evidence in person? If so, and that evidence is about to send a violent offender to jail, what do you think might happen, either before the trial or after the perpetrator gets out of jail... or is acquitted on a technicality? I say leave being a traffic cop to the police force, they get paid for it and, from what I can gather, it's a pretty thankless task as far as the general public goes!

 

[gman]

I wonder if the police will provide witness protection to go with those dashcams, because I think the driver might need it if they capture a dangerous criminal committing a driving offence and hand that evidence in to the police. I believe the camera user will have to make a formal statement to back that video evidence up, and give their full name, address, etc. to count as admissible evidence in a court of law, and perhaps even appear in court to give evidence in person? If so, and that evidence is about to send a violent offender to jail, what do you think might happen, either before the trial or after the perpetrator gets out of jail... or is acquitted on a technicality? I say leave being a traffic cop to the police force, they get paid for it and, from what I can gather, it's a pretty thankless task as far as the general public goes!

I've no idea, but in Scotland I think the police here still don't have a facility for the public to upload dashcam footage unlike England (or parts of?).

I'm sure it will come though. Speaking of the justice system, I heard by word of mouth that they may be getting rid of the Not Proven verdict, presumably to leave Guilty and Not Guilty? Doesn't really have any relevance here though, just came to mind.

Edit: actually your comments just reminded me of a YouTube channel I've seen where there's a cyclist who stands at a junction filming cars cutting a reservation to turn right due to traffic jams. The cars are being pretty dangerous and I believe his footage has resulted in a lot of prosecutions or fines, but he's a regular feature there and I do wonder if one day someone is going to return for him.

Edit 2: https://youtube.com/c/CyclingMikey and I think it's Gandolf Corner or something. It has been noticed that he almost always ignored cyclists doing it, I think citing it wound be dangerous to try and stop them.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Dashcams and motorbikes... that reminds me of an incident a few weeks ago (that, if I'd been a vindictive sort with nothing better to do, I could have posted on YouTube)... I was driving along a regular route I take and found I was following what appeared to be a more elderly bloke (I'd make an educated guess at 60+) riding a large, American style, motorbike, complete with paniers and fairings (most likely a Japanese job pretending to be a Harley Davidson Electra Glide - you probably get the picture).

Said bike was doing about 28 MPH in a 30mph zone, but wandering around the carriageway a bit too much for my liking, so I kept my distance. We then passed into a 40mph zone, where the bike starts doing 25mph. I maintained my 'even safer than usual' distance, suspecting the bike may be suffering from engine issues. We then pass into a national speed limit zone (60 mph limit) whereupon the bike travels at between 25mph and 40mph with no apparent speed correlation with bends, visibility splays, or other such road conditions.

I maintain my safe distance and we finally reach a set of traffic lights, where the chap positions his bike to the right hand side of the carriageway, but not signalling. Still maintaining a safe distance in case I have to negotiate my way around a broken down motorbike; the lights change and nothing happens for a few moments, he then sets off straight ahead, with the bike pulling away seemingly effortlessly, with no signs or sounds of engine trouble!

By now I have good reason to suspect that the erratic behaviour is down to the rider rather than the bike. I followed at a safe distance, with the bike accelerating up to 40mph to round a right hand bend, with the rider positioning the bike so far over to the right that the wheels were only a foot or so away from the double white lines down the centre of the road.

This meant that, in leaning into the bend, the rider's head and upper body were well over the white lines and into the path of oncoming traffic! I pulled back even further to provide sufficient room to avoid colliding with the wreckage and body parts if the worst happened! Unsurprisingly, just after the apex of the bend the biker had to veer suddenly to the left to avoid an oncoming car! Cue travelling at 25mph again until the crossroads, where the bike pulled up, after weaving to a halt, in the middle of the carriageway. Nothing coming, but we waited about 2 mins before the rider finally decided to turn left, wobbling off without signalling. I'm afraid my patience had run rather thin by that time so I announced my disapproval at his road manners with a long blast of my car horn, and gesticulated to the chap that I thought he was a t*sser.

I wouldn't mind, but stuck to the right hand side of his white, open faced, helmet was a camera! Not that I'd have appeared on it, unless he could have turned his head like an owl to look backwards (although I'm sure that remains a distinct possibility if he continues to negotiate right-hand bends like that into oncoming traffic!) but I couldn't ignore the irony! I don't think I've ever witnessed a more inept and incapable motorcyclist.

So do vehicle cameras make for safer motoring? Probably not, but at least the footage from mine might have been able to serve as valuable evidence in a coroner's court if that biker had not been able to avoid that oncoming car!

Sadly this same driver has a Nissan Micra that they occasionally take down the A4260 during rush hour. Either that or they went to the same driving school.