Videos/Photos for reporting?

[atomboy]

Hello guys,

I'm curious, what is the approach of the police in another countries with the videos and photos. What's your experience?

A rude driver made a horrible situation this summer, my helmet camera recorded this incident, and I wanted to send the video to the police. But one of my friend told me, that he wrote a letter for the police about this reporting. While I was waiting for the respond, I got a problem in my back so I had to go to the hospital for a surgery and I forgot this video. Last week I watched again my archive videos, and I found it. I asked the friend for this answer. Well, it isn't favorable.

The answer: "The videos and photos can be used as proof at the courthouse, but the police won't start the process, if the camera doesn't have any authentication."

Well, it means, I can't report the incidents with my videos without any authentication. I will ask them how can my camera get it.

I don't have enough time to visit the judges after every incidents or simple offences. It would better if the police accept all videos, and they punish the bad drivers. For example parking on the cycle lanes or in front of the crosswalk, etc.

Only the laws of Hungary are so intricate and unkindly? Our traffic rules are so stupid also, I will write a long essay next year.

I remember for some videos from England or USA, they were reported for the police, but I forgot to add them to my favourite, so I don't know, what are the results of them.

 

[gaz]

So far in the UK only two videos (to memory) have been used in the courts to bring a prosecution or charge against a person. I know that several other videos have been used by the police to bring charges to drivers as well. But thats mostly for there behaviour rather than there driving.

At present a few of us are working to get out video evidenced recognised. In London we have some top traffic officers that understand our position and take note of video evidence that we provide, but there aim is not to prosecute drivers, only to inform and teach them of what they did wrong.

I have recently had a similar line put to me by a Police officer, and i'm currently working at trying to turn around the situation to work in my favour, i'd prefer not to talk about it too much at present but will make the circumstances known when everything is done.


From the little reading that i have done about this, the 'authentication' is like a time stamp that is put on at the recording stage to help say that it hasn't been tampered with. But thats more in relation to CCTV and not the kind of videos we use.
You will find it hard to get you stuff into court if someone else hasn't used similar already, keep trying and i wish you luck.

 

[ufkacbln]

I have had two beneficial experiences, in both cases the Police have had words with the driver on the strength of the video.

A lot more success with Taxi Licensing and Company transport managers!

However I still tend to email the company, wait for the reply as to how the poor driver claims he was innocent and then send the video. The fact they have also been lied to upsets managers!

 

[downfader]

I cant comment on the video or Police (others with better experience can)..

..but welcome to the forum! Seen your stuff on youtube already.

 

[Vikeonabike]

It's a bit of a strange one this, hypocritical if you like because the police use video evidence routinely to prosecute. In Cambridgeshire we have to use video when attending a domestic incident, if we don't it has to be annotated as to why not. Video evidence is excepted as being best evidence. If evidence is caught on CCTV from someones own video at a burglary / theft etc it is used. The ONLY reason I can think of not to use it for cycling related incidents is a reluctance on the part of the "individual" police officer to investigate or on the CPS to prosecute. If it's good video and clearly shows an offence then there is no reason not to use it.

 

[Bikeabit]

Normally, a picture is worth a thousand words and a video even more so.
A few years ago some idiots who posted on-line their phone videos of 'happy slapping' exploits were prosecuted on the strength of the video.

Likewise I seem to remember one or two people (including police officers) getting into trouble for dangerous driving/excess speed on the strength of what they themselves posted on-line.

CCTV evidence is regularly used and accepted in court as is evidence obtained 'cops on camera' style'.

In short, while each case would be treated on its merits, I cannot see as a general rule why videos and photos cannot be used. I would suggest they would have most provenance if they were date/time stamped and the images were the best visual and audio quality leaving no doubt as to identification of the culprit and what was said (some of the aggressive verbal reactions of some of the drivers challenged seem to be worthy of prosecution for public order offences).

 

[spen666]

It's a bit of a strange one this, hypocritical if you like because the police use video evidence routinely to prosecute. In Cambridgeshire we have to use video when attending a domestic incident, if we don't it has to be annotated as to why not. Video evidence is excepted as being best evidence. If evidence is caught on CCTV from someones own video at a burglary / theft etc it is used. The ONLY reason I can think of not to use it for cycling related incidents is a reluctance on the part of the "individual" police officer to investigate or on the CPS to prosecute. If it's good video and clearly shows an offence then there is no reason not to use it.

Possible reason for not using the video would be some (mistaken) issue regarding the proof of authenticity of the video evidence.

However, as I said, it was mistaken