I was in court today

[DamoDoublemint]

As a witness, for an incident where I was hit by a car back in February:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpXNUFr6eVQ[/media]


The driver was found guilty, given 3 penalty points, a fine and court costs totaling £465.

I had details of 2 witnesses from the scene, but neither were in court today. Without the video, it would have been his word against mine, I don't think he would have found guilty without the video, so I'm happy to see that helmet camera footage is being used as evidence.

Unfortunately, the defence seemed to be implying that I was looking for trouble since I use a helmet camera, but I'm glad to say the magistrates would not allow this.

There is additional footage after the collision proving that I did not run after the car shouting "c*nt c*nt f*cking c*nt", which the defence said I did - I will make sure to include the aftermath in any future videos I send to the police.

 

[4F]

Nice result

 

[Origamist]

Good work, Damo. The camera was clearly a help here.

See you on the Blackfriars ride.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

There is additional footage after the collision proving that I did not run after the car shouting "c*nt c*nt f*cking c*nt", which the defence said I did

I can never understand why they don't also get charged with perjury when they are shown to have lied to the court under oath.

Well done by the way.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

There is additional footage after the collision proving that I did not run after the car shouting "c*nt c*nt f*cking c*nt", which the defence said I did - I will make sure to include the aftermath in any future videos I send to the police.

Even had you done so I would be intrigued by their line of argument as to mitigation on their clients behalf as said fictional expletive laden rant occurred after the collision.

and don't worry about the looking for trouble line. If you we not wearing a head cam they would have argued you were looking for trouble merely by the fact you were riding a bike.

 

[DamoDoublemint]

I can never understand why they don't also get charged with perjury when they are shown to have lied to the court under oath.

Well done by the way.

Unfortunately, I didn't include anything after the collision in the video I sent to the police. You could see the car starting to drive off, but it's probably difficult to prove I didn't do it as soon as it cut off - that was what the defence was saying. I'll know better next time (hopefully there won't be a next time).

 

[DamoDoublemint]

Even had you done so I would be intrigued by their line of argument as to mitigation on their clients behalf as said fictional expletive laden rant occurred after the collision.

The driver said his young son was in the car, so he didn't want somebody shouting profanities around him, so this was his excuse for driving off. The prosecutor did point out that he wasn't charged with leaving the scene, so it probably wasn't relevant anyway.

 

[ianrauk]

good result

 

[BSRU]

Excellent result

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

The driver said his young son was in the car, so he didn't want somebody shouting profanities around him, so this was his excuse for driving off. The prosecutor did point out that he wasn't charged with leaving the scene, so it probably wasn't relevant anyway.

**** is not a profanity. Christ or Gadzooks are.

 

[Buddfox]

The driver said his young son was in the car, so he didn't want somebody shouting profanities around him, so this was his excuse for driving off. The prosecutor did point out that he wasn't charged with leaving the scene, so it probably wasn't relevant anyway.

Why wasn't he charged with leaving the scene of an accident?

Well done for seeing it through.

 

[BentMikey]

Nice one Damo, happy for you!!

 

[gaz]

Good work mate.

As you have found out, best to include as much video as you can when you send your footage off to the cops.

 

[Red Light]

I can never understand why they don't also get charged with perjury when they are shown to have lied to the court under oath.

On that basis virtually everyone who was found guilty after a non-guilty plea would be guilty of perjury.

 

[Norm]

On that basis virtually everyone who was found guilty after a non-guilty plea would be guilty of perjury.

I mostly agree, although I still think there's a difference between guilty on the balance of evidence and guilty because this video shows you to be a liar.