Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Video: Careless van & trailer driver fined thanks to helmet cam evidence

Another scalp for Glasgow campaigner David Brennan

Another motorist has been fined and had points put on his licence as a result of video evidence submitted by a well-known Glasgow cycling campaigner.

David Brennan, known as Magnatom on Twitter, has been using cameras to record drivers behaving badly for seven years.

The Scotsman's Alastair Dalton reports that two drivers reported by Brennan have been found guilty.

On his daily ten-mile commute from Torrance in East Dunbartonshire to Glasgow's Southern General Hospital, where he's a clinical scientist, Brennan has plenty of opportunities to record poor and even dangerous driving, which he posts on his YouTube channel.

In the case that most recently came to trial, a driver was fined and given points for careless driving after he was found to have approached too close to Brennan when passing him in a van towing a trailer.

Here's the crucial video:

Brennan told road.cc: "He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. I think the fact that he lied in the video didn't help him."

In a previous case, a driver was fined after pleading guilty to dangerous driving by slamming on his brakes in front of Brennan on a main road into Glasgow.

Another five cases involving Brennan's evidence are still in the system. One, involving a driver charged with dangerous driving, goes to court on January 9.

Brennan told The Scotsman: "Cyclists are hugely vulnerable. Having a camera, if there is an incident, I can do something about it.

"If a driver is tailgating me, I turn round, and when they see the camera they pull back, so it can also adjust people's behaviour.

"Cameras are absolutely critical – if I had gone to the police in these cases it would have been my word against the drivers'."

Brennan says police reaction to his submission of video evidence has been variable.

"Yes, I've certainly had experience with police," he told road.cc, "ranging from being threatened with arrest, to being very enthusiastic to use my video evidence.

"Recently they got very annoyed with me (almost scolded me) for publishing a video before I spoke to them.

"I generally get a better response from them now, partly because they know me — they talk about my videos back at the station apparently — and because I know not to take any rubbish from them. You certainly have to chase them up. They never, ever get back to you and I've learned never to expect that."

Cyclists' use of helmet cams to gather evidence of dangerous driving is controversial.

Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) policy and research director Neil Greig told The Scotsman: "I have mixed feelings about them, as I fear they often generate more stress and anger than they solve.

"If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it."

However, a spokesman for the IAM, which has discount offers for dashboard cameras on its website, told us: "We have no difficulty [with cyclists using cameras to gather evidence]. Cameras do not necessarily capture everything that is relevant to a situation, but they clearly help."

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

36 comments

Avatar
P3t3 replied to bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

If I was a copper I would be welcoming these videos with open arms. It means they can sit back at HQ and watch a few videos and STILL hit their ticketing targets. Its ideal really - let the public do their work for them.

bendertherobot wrote:

Odd, he's had more incidents in that video than I've had all year.

Well he does ride in Scotland...

Avatar
Fifth Gear replied to P3t3 | 10 years ago
0 likes

The police do not want to prosecute motorists using video evidence because proving a case in court is costly and difficult and they tend not to have the expertise. Most traffic offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices which are much simpler and easier for them.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Fifth Gear | 10 years ago
0 likes
Fifth Gear wrote:

The police do not want to prosecute motorists using video evidence because proving a case in court is costly and difficult and they tend not to have the expertise. Most traffic offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices which are much simpler and easier for them.

I don't think that they don't want to prosecute using video evidence but that while to a lay person the evidence is clear, in evidential terms it is often less so with people arguing about lense angles and distance distortions and the like not to mention the hygiene of the evidence trail. Where has the video been who had it etc etc.

Where it is clear and these things don't come into play then they are interested. But so many times with a vehicle making a close pass it's impossible to quantify the distance as the vehicle is inevitably now in front when it's on camera. It's easy enough for the driver to clain that they did leave enough distance and that they were pulling back in as they were filmed. BS I know but it's difficult to prove otherwise.

Avatar
TiNuts replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared][quote=Fifth Gear wrote:

Where it is clear and these things don't come into play then they are interested. But so many times with a vehicle making a close pass it's impossible to quantify the distance as the vehicle is inevitably now in front when it's on camera. It's easy enough for the driver to clain that they did leave enough distance and that they were pulling back in as they were filmed. BS I know but it's difficult to prove otherwise.

It's a lot easier to prove when you have cameras fore and aft, as I now have. This has resulted in a number of RoadSafe (London only, regrettably) letters to miscreant motorists based on videos submitted to them. Yes, I know it's not a prosecution, but at least these dreadful drivers are aware that they are being filmed and it might, just might make them think about their behaviour in future.

Avatar
userfriendly | 10 years ago
0 likes

I sympathise, but seriously - get yourself an AirZound, David, before you cry yourself hoarse. It also leaves you much more relaxed and saves those precious oxygen molecules.

Avatar
bikebot replied to userfriendly | 10 years ago
0 likes
userfriendly wrote:

I sympathise, but seriously - get yourself an AirZound, David, before you cry yourself hoarse. It also leaves you much more relaxed and saves those precious oxygen molecules.

I'm thinking of taking mine off, the few times it would have been useful my mk1 LungZound always got there first and did the job just fine.

Pages

Latest Comments