Interesting changes to automated response to Met Police RTI reports
1) "It is anticipated that in the near future we will be able to provide a link which will publish case status updates"
This is a very welcome development. It's always been a bit arbitrary whether you got any update on case status. No update means it's very hard to tell if it's been worth your while bothering to report something. Being able to access updates will solve that- as well as enabling those who report to understand what type of evidence/offences are actioned vs. not and tailor their efforts accordingly.
2) Some of the guidance seems conflicting e.g. "We will not accept footage edited in any way" and, immediately after" please do not submit footage containing anything you are not willing to be shared. This includes things such as your home/work address, facial images of yourself/family or your vehicle registration mark (VRM)"
Combined, this is an unacceptable limitation on reporting. You should be able to blur out your own face or personal details if you don't wish them to be shared with an offending driver. The solution should be to allow editing to blur this out, but on the condition that the original unblurred footage is retained for the police to request if they or the court need it.
3) Unless there are extenuating circumstances please only submit a maximum of 2 pieces of footage no longer than 3 minutes in length to support your statement.
Quite a change from the previous "2 mins before and after required". A good move - and no doubt driven by the increasing number of reports and file size of 4K (or higher) footage. This is good IMO and will make reporting much easier. I never paid much attention to the 2 mins before and after, certainly for phone driving reports - and it was never an issue. Should prevent the system being clogged up with unecessary footage.
4) We do not require supporting photographs as these will not be considered when making a case disposal decision
This is short sighted in my opinion. I often export a frame or two to submit as stills to provide a ready view of e.g. phone held in hand, or the VRM - especially if (as is sometimes the case) the VRM is only visible in one frame. This can only help speed up their processing of a report.
5) If the date/time stamp on the footage is incorrect and does not reflect the date/time of the incident reported, the case will not be proceeded with
This is nonsense, and is a matter for educating courts / CPS not for rejecting case reports. It is easily demonstrable that cycle camera date/timestamps easily become misaligned if e.g. the camera runs out of battery and doesn't have a means to automatically set the time/date stamp. There should just be a standardised response available to reject any lawyer who challenges on the basis of such a date/time stamp.
The net result of this is that it is very important for ALL cyclists reporting with camera footage to turn off any date/time stamp function, because it is now solely a source of risk that their report will not be processed.
7) Due to the decriminalisation of a large number of traffic offences we are unable to deal with ... the majority of offences relating to contravention of road traffic signs. This includes ... “one-way street” and “no left/right turn” signs"
So basically these signs are all now suggestions rather than requirements? That's .... an interesting approach. I wonder how long it will take drivers to realise that they now have carte blanche to drive the wrong way up one-way streets ... ?
8) Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with
I understand the intention here - but it feels there is a strong possibility this will end up being used to reject cases where e.g. a close pass generates an instinctive fear/anger response. Or where a polite "please don't use your phone while driving" comment has been made.
Interested in the thoughts of others!
Add new comment
13 comments
Some of the guidance seems conflicting e.g. "We will not accept footage edited in any way"
The police often seem to be unable to use English in the normal way so we must take 'any way' as not being intended to mean 'any way', it's just yet another dodge to enable them to bin cases they don't like. They do use ambiguous language deliberately to cover up what they're doing: this is what's behind Lancashire's 'we're taking action' dodge, where they gave the usual options of advice letter, driving course etc. after the words 'which could include the following'. Even Lancashire Constabulary officers are not dim enough to fail to realise that the proposed 'action' could also be 'NFA', especially as I told them years ago that the wording should be: 'we are taking action which will be one of the following'. It's deliberate all right, and remained unchanged. Now, of course, they just ignore all offences like the one in the photo below- although there is an interesting aspect to PK17 XHR, for those who want some sleuthing practice.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned GPS. If the camera is not fully connected, the time and other GPS info. do not display. Obviously the chip knows 'the time' to within tiny fractions of a second, but we don't know how long it takes to display time on screen. On my old Hero 7 Black it won't display seconds natively, but I do know that phone network time, Rugby radio time and GoPro GPS time click over to a new minute within 2 seconds of each other. This is outside Garstang Library on Windsor Road, where the road runs W by WNW. GPS shows this, so there is no doubt about the time. This 'accurate time' dodge is just another police method of binning reports of drivers offending.
"We will not accept footage edited in any way"
This has always confused me too, especially as I was recently asked to edit my submissions to make the file size smaller to aid downloading speed. I can only assume they mean manipulated in some way so the video you watch gives a different impression of what actually happened.
The list of
unenforceabledecriminalised traffic offences also includes driving in a cycle lane...https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7/part/4
I guess these get reported to the relevant council now?
Is everyone getting the new auto-response? I've only done about a dozen, since June this year, but my response has always been the same.
As recently as yesterday I got this back, as usual:
Is that response from the Met?
I do get a different response from other forces, including City of London
Yes, that's the text from the email I get after each submission. It's been the same since June. It goes on to talk about updating the report, getting post-crime support, and providing feedback on the reporting process.
Just weird that others seem to be getting different responses.
AIUI these are now dealt with by TFL / Local Councils. Can these be reported directly to them?
If someone, for example, drove the wrong way down a one-way street and forced you to brake and / or swerve to avoid a collision presumably the police could still deal with that as careless / dangerous driving?
No council I know of has any system allowing online reporting like this - and I can't imagine any of them have the resources to introduce one at the moment
It'll be ANPR enforcement or no enforcement, basically
5 Even Essex manage to have a option to state the time on the camera is wrong; the time as per the reported offence is correct.
Most years I forget to change the clock by the 1 hour BST/GMT - are they seriously saying this would 'undermine' the case ?
And how accurate does the clock have to be ?
7 Someone one twitter asked if they were driving and went up the one way st the wrong way then any police officers in the vicinity would now ignore it.
On timestamp, I think it is admin - if the timestamp is wrong then a defence lawyer will try to use that as a reason to dismiss the case, arguing that their client was not in the place at that time.
I have in the past been asked to submit a formal statement confirming that the date stamp was incorrect, for that reason - and I can see exactly why they want to avoid the burden of this kind of admin I turned my timestamps off immediately after that to avoid a repeat
But it does seem particularly pointless given that they happily process reports with no timestamp based on the time advised by the submitter. The default approach should be that the timestamp is ignored, and a standardised response is given to loophole lawyers.
However in the meantime, cyclists submitting reports to Met should just definitely turn off any timestamp that doesn't automatically check and update itself whenever the camera is turned on, just in case.
It's a ridiculous requirement and they should just accept incorrect timestamps as long as the submitter declares the correct time. Surely it is better to include timestamps as it makes it less likely that the footage has been edited or sped up etc.
We are unable to proceed with a murder charge as the witness does not have a suitable timestamp for the alleged offence.