West Midlands: helmet cam cyclist shops 325 drivers in a year

jboss wrote:

I did ask them to explain why so few of the videos are followed-up on and they told me that as there's no distance limit defined in law then essentially a close-pass can't be prosecuted. They said that they looked for things other than distance in the videos - eg. swerving, forcing others to brake etc.

Although, naturally, when I've queried incidents with them, the Police do say things like "you were too far from the kerb" (even though a distance isn't defined in law), you didn't swerve so the vehicle couldn't have been too close - or even, you swerved out of the way so the driver obviously wasn't too close.

Here's the quote from TVP for one of the videos I sent in:

"Many thanks for submitting the on-line report and footage.
On review of these, it has been decided that no action will be taken by the police at this time
The footage does show a close pass though does not provide enough evidence of an offence being committed in which it would be proportionate for the police to deal with retrospectively at this time"

And another:

"The footage shows you riding <location> and a Tesco delivery van passing you on the offside before moving back to the nearside under braking before it turns left into <named> Road at the traffic lights.

I appreciate it looks a little untidy and you may have had to adjust your speed a little but the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision. The footage doesn’t contain sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation because there is no prospect of bringing a prosecution.

In my opinion you did the right thing by anticipating and adjusting your riding but you didn’t need to take action in order to avoid a collision."

Basically, it seems that unless you actually get hit, it wasn't either a close pass or a left hook!

Contacted Tesco and they spent ages making up various excuses of not being able to view the footage and then just stopped replying altogether.

@LastBoyScout:

So, are they saying that "anticipating and adjusting your riding" isn't taking an action?

The statement that "the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision" is utter horrocks - if you had to "anticipate and adjust your riding" then you (a Road User) did have to take action, surely?

The charging guidelines for dangerous driving contain this example:

"failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home"

This is a useful reminder should the police not react appropriately to a reported incident.

jigr69 wrote:

The only issue I have with helmet mounted cameras is that they can become a liability in the event of an accident and possibly, can increase the severity of any head injuries.

If my memory serves me correctly, I'm sure the severity of Michael Schumacher's head injury was caused by a helmet mounted camera.

It wasn't the camera which was the issue, more the post mount which was punched through the helmet and onwards...

flobble wrote:

How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that's admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful 'workflow' tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.

Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.

That's a great idea.  I don't commute these days as I work all over but I do cycle regularly and a couple of incidents recently have genuinely made me fear I was going to be knocked off my bike.  I would have loved to submit good quality evidence.

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

barongreenback wrote:

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye-watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost-effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

I use a Roadhawk Ride R+  for the front. It was a bit expensive, but I got it on the drip so a tenner a month wasn't missed.

Mounting on the drop handlebar makes it subtle enough. There are other 'bullet type' cameras which can be similarly mounted.

For the rear, I use a cheap Chinese camera/light which isn't noticeable as a camera.

[/quote]

I use a Roadhawk Ride R+  for the front. It was a bit expensive, but I got it on the drip so a tenner a month wasn't missed.

Mounting on the drop handlebar makes it subtle enough. There are other 'bullet type' cameras which can be similarly mounted.

For the rear, I use a cheap Chinese camera/light which isn't noticeable as a camera.

[/quote]

I also use these cameras front and rear (although mine are the identical Dogcam R+).

I use the helmet mounts for the Exposure Joystick lights which are the same dia as the cameras. Very neat.

barongreenback wrote:

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

This isn't the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).

red_nick wrote:

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

 

This isn't the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).

Exactly theres no need for a camera to identify the driver necessarily, I've submitted footage where you could only see the back of the car as they cut me up through a pinch point which resulted in a letter sent to the driver,which was probably all I could expect from it.

But 325 submissions in year is impressive in so far as the commitment to follow them all through,even if it's easy to upload the videos,theres still the whole witness report form to fill in,review of footage,identify the vehicle involved,it can be a draining process to keep having to do it repeatedly,when all you want to do is ride a bike in some sense of safety

Awavey wrote:

red_nick wrote:

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

 

This isn't the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).

Exactly theres no need for a camera to identify the driver necessarily, I've submitted footage where you could only see the back of the car as they cut me up through a pinch point which resulted in a letter sent to the driver,which was probably all I could expect from it. But 325 submissions in year is impressive in so far as the commitment to follow them all through,even if it's easy to upload the videos,theres still the whole witness report form to fill in,review of footage,identify the vehicle involved,it can be a draining process to keep having to do it repeatedly,when all you want to do is ride a bike in some sense of safety

I wouldn't be so confident on that score. I used to work in a cop shop, and saw quite a few issues with drivers claiming they weren't driving at the time, and the onus was always on the police to have good photographic evidence from speed cameras etc (these were always speeding offences). Of course these are for the purposes of prosecution, not to simply send a letter out which I guess needs less evidence of who was actually driving.

Kendalred wrote:

Awavey wrote:

red_nick wrote:

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

 

This isn't the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).

Exactly theres no need for a camera to identify the driver necessarily, I've submitted footage where you could only see the back of the car as they cut me up through a pinch point which resulted in a letter sent to the driver,which was probably all I could expect from it. But 325 submissions in year is impressive in so far as the commitment to follow them all through,even if it's easy to upload the videos,theres still the whole witness report form to fill in,review of footage,identify the vehicle involved,it can be a draining process to keep having to do it repeatedly,when all you want to do is ride a bike in some sense of safety

 

I wouldn't be so confident on that score. I used to work in a cop shop, and saw quite a few issues with drivers claiming they weren't driving at the time, and the onus was always on the police to have good photographic evidence from speed cameras etc (these were always speeding offences). Of course these are for the purposes of prosecution, not to simply send a letter out which I guess needs less evidence of who was actually driving.

The article is specifically about using a handheld device whilst driving - so it would be necessary to have an image of the driver, the device and their hand.  However it isn't necessary for the driver to be identifiable, as according to the article the punishment for the registered keeper failing to identify the driver is the same as the punishment for handheld device offence - so the same as speeding in that regard.

I think that it is the 'notice of intended prosecution' that requires registered keepers to identify the driver and these can be sent for inconsiderate driving offences (which is what close passes tend to be treated as).  The important thing is that the NIP needs to be received by the registered keeper within 14 days (or at least sent, such that it could ordinarily be received within 14) - so the sooner footage is provided to the police, the better.

Other offences, such as parking and bus lane violations are deemed to be the responsibility of registered keeper - regardless of who was driving.  Now that these are mostly 'de-criminalised' they are dealt with by the relevant local council - I don't know if any of them accept footage from the public.  I've sent photos of cars blocking cycle routes (there's a particular junction on my way to work where there was a problem with vehicles parking on the double yellows and even on the traffic refuge island) - it seems to have improved the situation greatly.

red_nick wrote:

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

Still, a guide on how to produce useful footage would considerably more useful than the usual diet of regurgitated articles from 2/3 years ago which this site usually churns out.  Come on road.cc - get writing something new!

 

This isn't the US, you can get points and fines for failing to identify the driver (which given how lackluster punishments are, might actually be more than they would receive otherwise).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

A bit like this, I firmly believe that if the driver had been identified they should have been jailed.

May seem a little draconian, bit how about failure to identify the driver means the registered keeper faces the rap for the offence  

ReadingTim wrote:

I would have thought that the footage needs to include clear shots of both the vehicle and the driver for it to stick - otherwise matey boy will just claim they weren't driving the car/van at the time, and the police will NFA it 'cos they can't be bothered to investigate/prove who was.  For that reason, a helmet mounted cam is probably more useful than a bike mounted one.  Or perhaps one needs both.  

I use a bar-mounted camera, as I agree with jigr about not mounting anything on a helmet.

If you can catch the vehicle in traffic, you can usually get a pic of the driver. On yesterday's close pass, I managed to catch them up twice, the second time I got off the bike on the pavement and held it up to make sure I got them - at which point, they suddenly became very apologetic...

barongreenback wrote:

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

Stealth ghost X is small and not that obvious - £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.

hirsute wrote:

barongreenback wrote:

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

Stealth ghost X is small and not that obvious - £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.

Reviews a bit patchy on Amazon though.

hirsute wrote:

barongreenback wrote:

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

Stealth ghost X is small and not that obvious - £110 on amazon plus the cost of an sd card.

Mobious https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&ei=0Rj8XNHIJpy11fAP3u6k...

barongreenback wrote:

flobble wrote:

How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that's admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful 'workflow' tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.

Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.

 

That's a great idea.  I don't commute these days as I work all over but I do cycle regularly and a couple of incidents recently have genuinely made me fear I was going to be knocked off my bike.  I would have loved to submit good quality evidence.

 

I've looked at the Cycliq camera lights but the cost is eye watering.  Likewise I don't want something like a GoPro sitting on my helmet.  Anyone have any good cost effective alternatives that don't look too obvious on the bike?

I asked the same question a while ago & got some recommendations:

https://road.cc/content/forum/257098-camera

Still not made my mind up. Fancied the Fly12 but just too big & cumbersome.

flobble wrote:

How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that's admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful 'workflow' tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.

Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.

I'm no expert, but here's my tips:

• Keep your camera(s) updated with the correct time and date. For some reason, my Cycliq ones randomly reset themselves back to 2015 every so often.
• When first reviewing footage, make a note of the time shown on the video for the incident so that it's easy to find again and correlate with other cameras if you have more than one. It also makes it easier to cut/splice the footage so that you've got two minutes before and two minutes afterwards.
• After making a note of the number plate, look it up on a number plate search website (https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/) to check that the vehicle matches and that you haven't misread it.
• If you're an exuberant cyclist, check the footage to ensure that you're not going to incriminate yourself or at least not for anything more serious than the incident that you're submitting. Also, bear this in mind when approaching known trouble hotspots so that you've got a well behaved two minutes before (and after).
• When you spot an incident, don't bother engaging the motorist - let the footage speak for itself.
• After submitting the footage, keep a copy of it in easy to navigate folders. I use the date as the folder name and update it with the police reference as well so that it's easy to find if necessary.
• If the police don't respond in a suitable fashion, raise a complaint to get it recorded on their stats. However, sometimes it's just a difference of opinion on the incident which is not the same as the police not doing their job.
• Don't put yourself in danger just for the purpose of gathering footage. The whole purpose of gathering footage is to make everyone safer on the roads.

hawkinspeter wrote:

flobble wrote:

How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that's admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful 'workflow' tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.

Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.

I'm no expert, but here's my tips:

• Keep your camera(s) updated with the correct time and date. For some reason, my Cycliq ones randomly reset themselves back to 2015 every so often
•  

Yep, got that problem.  The Android app. for Cycliq won't work talking to the camera over bluetooth, only over wifi, and even then its problematic.  Easiest way I've found to get at the footage is to plug it in and access it as a USB drive -- then I find that either the time and date have rest themself or it just simply hasn't recorded anything for a week.  I find it to be a frustratingly expensive flashing light for much of my use

ajft wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

flobble wrote:

How about a piece from road.cc on what it takes to produce high quality evidence that's admissible in court? Links to official guidance on the matter, experiences from others who have been through the process. Useful 'workflow' tips to minimise the time overhead. That sort of thing.

Many of us have cameras, but I doubt that many of us know how to use them effectively.

I'm no expert, but here's my tips:

• Keep your camera(s) updated with the correct time and date. For some reason, my Cycliq ones randomly reset themselves back to 2015 every so often
•  

Yep, got that problem.  The Android app. for Cycliq won't work talking to the camera over bluetooth, only over wifi, and even then its problematic.  Easiest way I've found to get at the footage is to plug it in and access it as a USB drive -- then I find that either the time and date have rest themself or it just simply hasn't recorded anything for a week.  I find it to be a frustratingly expensive flashing light for much of my use

I've given up using the app as it was so unreliable. I just connect via USB and when I need to change the time/date, I manually edit the config.txt file on the SD card.

What we need is some well designed competition for Cycliq. What I want is good quality video and automatic overwriting of old footage when the storage is full.

LastBoyScout wrote:

I've got 2 to submit from yesterday to TVP - so far, all but 1 have resulted in NFA, the other resulted in a visit from the police and then NFA!

Surprise. It seems the difference in NFA comes down to whether the police force gives a damn about cyclists.
How can we hold each police force to account and get them to adhere to some sort of national standards?