Any Reason Not To Act On Info Sent In From Dash Cams?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40996609/motorists-using-dash-cams-to-inform-on-dodgy-drivers

[ludwig]

I can't think of one.

[Peter Pedant]

biig bruvva watch was saying this is a bad idea

but if you send in info they may act on it like you know they do for other info given them in more traditional ways

[trt]

Wouldn't the court have to prove you were driving, if there was no evidence on the video of your face?

[Mamyalynne]

If the information sent in was as clear and actionable as those in the video on the link then no reason not to act.

[Hopkirk]

They only provide a snapshot. You don't know what lead up to it, or what happened our of view.

[New Judge]

"Wouldn't the court have to prove you were driving, if there was no evidence on the video of your face?"

Yes they would. And they would do so by issuing a request under Section 172 of the Road traffic Act to the Registered Keeper (RK). The RK has a duty under S172 to provide the driver's details at the time of an alleged offence. If he fails to do so he will be guilty of an offence which carries 6 penalty points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for a number of years (as insurers do not like the endorsement code - MS90 - which goes with it). There is a statutory defence to the charge which I won't go into here.

[New Judge]

And in fact, reading trt's post again, even if there was a clear photograph of the driver the same S172 process would still be followed as the police would have no intention of trying to identify the driver from a fuzzy image. They have no need to.

[Old_Geezer]

I thought that our police force was already overworked. They'd need a massive recruitment drive to cover traffic violations and not distract from other crime.

[Old_Geezer]

Anyway eastern European nations have already experimented with citizens telling on each other. Doesn't lead to a pleasant trusting environment to live in. Might be something well intentioned folk lived to regret.

[ToraToraTora]

"Wouldn't the court have to prove you were driving" - don't see how that's relevant. Were as I don't doubt the judge, if someone sent in a video of a clear act of dangerous driving for example anonymously can they not act on it? look at some of the examples in the link.
"they only provide a snapshot. " - err no they are videos of the incident. - click on the top left, that has got to be bang to rights has it not? Would anonymous reporting not be enough to prosecute here? - Judge, please clarify.

[trt]

## Yes they would. And they would do so by issuing a request under Section 172 of the Road traffic Act to the Registered Keeper (RK). ##

Hi Judge, I see your point, but many times watching police car chase programmes over the years, the police have sometimes said at the end, that charges were dropped against all three individuals, for dangerous driving, as there was no proof who the driver was.

[New Judge]

There’s two distinct scenarios where bad driving is involved.

The first is where sustained and deliberate furious driving takes place, often accompanied by a pursuing police car and/or helicopter. The vehicle may be stolen and/or other serious offences may be involved such as insurance deficiencies or disqualified driving. In these circumstances, the threat of a fine (which, if it is paid at all, would be at a fiver a week) when the other offences attract custody, or the prospect of six points when the other offences attract lengthy disqualifications are hardly likely to attract much response following a request for driver’s details.

The second is more what I had in mind when I looked at this question. This is where careless or inconsiderate driving is undertaken when other aspects (insurance, licence, etc.) are in order. Imagine this: I get a dashcam image of some bad driving. Apart from capturing the vehicle Reg No. it (unsually) also happens to capture a decent image of the driver’s face. I report this to the police. They (even more unusually) decide to follow it up. I don’t know the driver’s identity and neither do they. What do they do? Prepare an article for “Crimewatch”? Put out an “all ports warning” with photos of the miscreant? No. They send a S172 notice to the Registered Keeper requesting driver’s details at the time of the incident. This time the threat of a hefty fine and points often concentrates their mind (especially if they were not driving themselves).

[Old_Geezer]

On the other hand if you are getting snitches to do the coppers' job for them, perhaps they can make half the force redundant.

[ToraToraTora]

surely judge if they have the reg they'd send out an NIP and wait for them to confirm who is driving as they do with red lights etc.

[Peter Pedant]

well NJ
you can give them a decent statement of current law ( and procedure) and all you get in answer is.....

are you sure ?

[Zacs-Master]

I welcome the prevalence of dash cams. It will slowly sink into the consciousness of even the dullest joyrider ( a misnomer if ever there was one) that their actions may be recorded.

[New Judge]

"surely judge if they have the reg they'd send out an NIP and wait for them to confirm who is driving as they do with red lights etc."

That's exactly what I said, 3Ts ! Except....

The NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) is not a request for driver's details. It is simply what it says on the tin - a notification that a prosecution is intended. The Section 172 "Request for Driver's Details" (which usually accompanies the NIP and is often printed on the same piece of paper)is a separate document and it is that document which forms the formal request, not the NIP.

[ToraToraTora]

ok but they'd have to say who was driving right?

[Mamyalynne]

http://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/2/6/section-172-failure-to-provide-information-of-drivers-identity-defences

[Zacs-Master]

Yeah, cmon NJ, you've not really made it clear.