Video: Driver guilty of charges including common assault after knocking cyclist off bike

StuInNorway wrote:

The only difference I can think of in the 2 cases is that in one the footage is from the cyclist themselves, in the one where they prosecuted, it's taken from another vehicle and therefore classes as "independent", although exactly how a camera mounted on a helmet or in a windscreen  in itself can be independent or biased I am unsure, maybe it's something GoPro etc can fix with a firmware update ?
 

I think the general idea is that people have an autonomous drone that flies 10 or 30m above their heads and follows them around everywhere they go, recording footage just incase the inevitable should happen. 

I think what happened in the other case is rediculous, you have footage of yourself being knocked off the bike and physically assaulted and your footage means absolutely nothing to the police.

StuInNorway wrote:

The only difference I can think of in the 2 cases is that in one the footage is from the cyclist themselves, in the one where they prosecuted, it's taken from another vehicle and therefore classes as "independent", although exactly how a camera mounted on a helmet or in a windscreen  in itself can be independent or biased I am unsure, maybe it's something GoPro etc can fix with a firmware update ?
 

If it's independent it means it is unlikely to be edited for your own gain.

Plus the person recording is also more likely to be a witness to the incident if it comes from a dash cam or another cyclist's camera.

Bluebug wrote:

StuInNorway wrote:

The only difference I can think of in the 2 cases is that in one the footage is from the cyclist themselves, in the one where they prosecuted, it's taken from another vehicle and therefore classes as "independent", although exactly how a camera mounted on a helmet or in a windscreen  in itself can be independent or biased I am unsure, maybe it's something GoPro etc can fix with a firmware update ?
 

If it's independent it means it is unlikely to be edited for your own gain. Plus the person recording is also more likely to be a witness to the incident if it comes from a dash cam or another cyclist's camera.

It's very very easy to see if a video has been edited if the police can't manage that basic bit of research then they shouldn't use ANY video footage. Cameras don't lie

balmybaldwin wrote:

It's very very easy to see if a video has been edited if the police can't manage that basic bit of research then they shouldn't use ANY video footage. Cameras don't lie

Do the police dispute the validity of a business owners CCTV footage in the case of a robbery? Of course not - I fail to see how a cyclists footage is any less valid. 

IMO this attitude is more about avoiding a huge flood of valid evidence of illegal and dangerous driving which they would have a duty to investigate and prosecute. Perhaps if the police were funded properly they may have more appetite for this.