• But surely they have to be at least viewing all of the footage so they can evaluate whether it is a 'more serious' incident or not? Is the time/effort required to "warn the owner/keeper of their conduct regarding their manor of driving" that much less than to just send them 3 points and a fine? At least then the revenue from the fine might make the whole thing worthwhile.

    I know that if the case was to go to court, that would drastically change the time/effort ratio. But I imagine that must be the minority of incidents.

  • I expect the main limiting factor may be that in most of the footage you can't actually see who's driving, so if you were to initiate formal proceedings that were more than a warning, that would probably complicate it. Obviously, the warning could be challenged in the same way, but most people probably wouldn't bother.

    I should add that of course I don't know how exactly they process it all, but I think what I wrote above is a reasonable set of assumptions, as is Greenbank's.

  • I expect the main limiting factor may be that in most of the footage you can't actually see who's driving

    Shouldn't a problem, the NIP process deals with that and there's a £1000 fine and 6 points on the license of the registered keeper if they fail to disclose who was driving at the time: https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-medi­a/general/what-is-failing-to-provide-dri­ver-information

  • Ah, but why is that process not being used, then? Is it because the offences in which nobody gets injured (although they could well have been, e.g. in jackincaves' example, you can well imagine a pedestrian already stepping into the carriageway) are considered too 'small' to crack down on? I can't really imagine that. Perhaps even the process of entering into correspondence about disclosing who was driving would be too much administrative effort?

  • Maybe because they're relying on your number plate recall rather than being able to see it on the video? I had one of the same and they sent a notice of prosec but the plate was clearly visible on film.

  • Did you have two minutes either side of the incident in your video? That appears to be crucial. Almost all the drivers I report receive an NIP.

  • The version I uploaded to YouTube is a shorter edit. The video I submitted shows 2 mins either side, including when I inevitably get to him 20s later at the next lights and sit behind him to get his plate.

  • Aha! Clever cookie :)

    Mine one was a low speed roll through. Like they'd stopped at the red, then a second later thought "fuck this" and just left. I mean, do they think they're on a bike or something? ;)

  • Just received another update by email, after I replied and questioned them. The short version is that "there is a loss of continuous vision" of the car between him going through the light and when I record his number plate, because of glare from oncoming lights and because I wiped the lens with my finger. I disagree that the lights obscure the car and while my finger does, it would be a lot of effort to have fabricated a video to get someone a ticket. Never mind. I hope this guy buys himself a lottery ticket today as luck is clearly on his side.

    Here's the full version, if you're interested. Includes 1 full minute of me fumbling around removing an unnecessary rain jacket.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omf6J_DI­8jU

  • I had a submission dismissed recently as they couldn't make out the plate at the moment the offense was committed. I caught up further down the road and got the plates in clear view but apparently that didn't cut the mustard as there was no cast iron guarantee that was the same vehicle.

    edit: lol, what you just said ^

  • The short version is that "there is a loss of continuous vision" of the car between him going through the light and when I record his number plate, because of glare from oncoming lights and because I wiped the lens with my finger

    That makes sense, probably wouldn't stand up in court. My Garmin Virb is shit at picking up plates in the dark.

  • After I receive the email from the Police saying that an NIP has been sent I rarely hear from them again, unless it goes to Court. Am I right to assume that they will, after identifying the driver, then receive a fixed penalty (points + fine)?

  • I don't understand why it is not just a matter for seeing that footage and sending a FPN?

    If a police officer saw you on the phone, you'd get points and fine. Why can they not just send out the same for footage?

  • That is a bullshit excuse. It's a distinctive vehicle and there is no way another identical car could have appeared there considering the road layout. I wonder if they would have said the same if it was a green Lamborghini?

  • My understanding is that the NIP is simply to identify who was driving the car. No guarantee that any subsequent action will be taken.

    I'm not even sure fixed penalties can be given from video evidence. Think it's either court or nothing.

  • I'm not even sure fixed penalties can be given from video evidence. Think it's either court or nothing.

    If that's the case then a lot of people I report are getting away scot free after receiving an NIP. If it goes to Court I think I have to be informed as I am a witness, don't I?

  • I once queried a no further action response to a close pass, in their follow up they mentioned that when viewing my rear view footage the driver's number plate could be seen.

    I asked them what they meant by this. They said if the number plate is visible then they are not too close....

    In my experience - responses, the reasoning behind decisions, and 'success' in terms of a NIP vary wildly depending on which bit of London you were in when the incident occurred.

    As @Oliver Schick says, it's worthwhile reporting so that evidence is available further down the line if necessary and as @dancing james says better technology can mitigate some of the issues as far as subjectivity is concerned.

  • The next stage after an NIP is for the driver to be summonsed. At that point they can either respond to the summons with a 'fair cop, guilty' and take whatever points / fine / whatever offer is in the letter, or they can say plead not guilty and it will go to court. If a driver is summonsed then you'll be notified as they need to know when you will be available to be a witness should it go to court.

    So far I've had a bunch of NIPs sent out, but only 1 of those has gone on to someone being summonsed.

    Summonsed is a stupid word.

  • Are you sure that they need to inform you at the 'summonsing' stage though? The only follow-up emails I have had after NIP is when it's definitely going to Court. Isn't it more likely that they just don't (or legally can't) inform you when the driver accepts the fixed penalty?

  • I'm not even sure fixed penalties can be given from video evidence. Think it's either court or nothing.

    You can get a fixed penalty from a speed camera, though, can't you?

  • Yes, but that's not public submitted video evidence.

  • Yes, but that's not public submitted video evidence.

    This page suggests that a Fixed Penalty can be issued on video evidence:

    https://www.cambs.police.uk/report/Repor­t-Shared/CTC-FAQs#l

    What will happen to the driver?

    There are a number of methods available dependant on the nature of the offence. The driver could be offered written advice, a driver awareness course, they could receive a Fixed Penalty Notice, or they could receive a summons to attend court.

    Will I have to go to court and give evidence?

    Early indications suggest that on average only one to two percent of all reported offences result in a court appearance. There are other methods available such as attendance on a driver improvement course or the acceptance of a fixed penalty notice.
    If on the very rare occasion the offence which you report requires a court appearance, then you will be fully supported through the process.

  • The cyclegaz youtube channel has numerous examples of people getting points+fines based on his footage. He's got a pretty high hit rate.

  • Dunno, I get the impression that the 'process' here is pretty scattergun. The email I had regarding the summonsing went

    I am writing to inform you that we are in receipt of, and have investigated your report into an alleged traffic offence(s). The conclusion of this investigation is that an offence(s) has been committed and the defendant has been summonsed.

    The purpose of this email is to inform you that should the defendant plead not guilty to the summons the case will progress to trial where you will be called to attend the hearing as a witness.

    I dunno, maybe they were given an FPN and rejected it but then why would they have the opportunity to plead not guilty in court. Basically it's all very confusing and opaque and lord knows what the hell is actually going on.

  • Dunno, I get the impression that the 'process' here is pretty scattergun. The email I had regarding the summonsing went

    I think the 'summons' is a 'summons to attend court', so potentially after they have rejected an FPN. Are there any lawyers on here that actually know what they are talking about?

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Posted by Avatar for dancing james @dancing james

Actions