20 cm from Death - Outcome

owenlars

[/quote]What else have we got ? What would prevent the kind of incident that Magnatom was involved in ?[/quote]

Nothing will prevent bad driving or simple accidents or indeed bad cycling. Sanctions against people who are found guilty of criminal or irresponsible acts may help but nothing on this earth will stop all bad stuff happening, least of all legislation.

jeremyrundle

Please note that both headcams and home cctv setups are admissable as evidence in court, see data protection and personal cctv/video evidence.

I have just had someone prosecuted for affray with headcam evidence.

The Rookie

pshore wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think he who suggested strict liability really understands just what this means in a legal context.

Simple strict liability means if it happens you are guilty with NO defences.

In UK law there are only two SL offences, Murder and treason (noting that someone may be not guilty of murder, it may be manslughter for example, but if they did indeed commit murder there is no get out such as a 'duress of circumstances defence)

Simon

dilemna

The Beginner wrote:

pshore wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think he who suggested strict liability really understands just what this means in a legal context.

Simple strict liability means if it happens you are guilty with NO defences.

In UK law there are only two SL offences, Murder and treason (noting that someone may be not guilty of murder, it may be manslughter for example, but if they did indeed commit murder there is no get out such as a 'duress of circumstances defence)

Simon

Wrong. SL liability means there is no mens rea element merely actus rea to committing an offence. There are many motoring offences that are SL for example speeding offences where speed is recorded by camera. It doesn't matter what your state of mind was you were speeding! Of course there are other elements such as identification of the driver and calibration of the machine but the offence is still a SL one. Murder is a common law offence not a strict liability offence. For the offence of murder to be committed a person must show actus rea and most importantly mens rea ie intention to kill. A defendant would be able to put forward any of the established defences or alternatively try a new one ........

magnatom

Hi Guys,

Sorry for not posting back on here much.

If you are interested it might be worth having a look at the Sunday Times tomorrow.....

The Rookie

dilemna wrote:

Wrong. SL liability means there is no mens rea element

You are right, got confused with absolute liability.....oops!

Simon

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

pshore wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think he who suggested strict liability really understands just what this means in a legal context.

Simple strict liability means if it happens you are guilty with NO defences.

In UK law there are only two SL offences, Murder and treason (noting that someone may be not guilty of murder, it may be manslughter for example, but if they did indeed commit murder there is no get out such as a 'duress of circumstances defence)

Simon

Simon,

i'm afraid that is simply wrong

For a start murder is not an offence of strict liability. There must be the necessary mens rea for a killing to be murder- so therefore it cannot be strict liability. If murder was an offence of strict liability, there would not be an offence or manslaughter, not of the various death by...driving offences

I do not have access to the necessary legal text books at home, but am certain treason is also not an offence of strict liability

Also there are numerous offences of strict liability - eg driving with No insurance is an offence of strict liability

spen666

magnatom wrote:

Hi Guys,

Sorry for not posting back on here much.

If you are interested it might be worth having a look at the Sunday Times tomorrow.....

can you enlighten those of us who: -
a) don't buy ST as don't have time to read it all
b) refuse to pay to view a news website

Please

dilemna

^^^^^ I second that. I don't buy the ST and access to their website is by subscription only which I object to paying. Why didn't you choose a more freely available paper or was this out of your control? Is the other contributor the cycling silk? His recent incident was in the Torygraph last saturday. (Bought only for free Duchy mince pies btw).

Origamist

Spen, Dilemna - here you go:

Sunday Times
Smile, rogue drivers, you’re on cycle camera
Aggressive motorists face prosecution as riders use helmet devices to catch their dangerous exploits on the roads on film
Kevin Dowling
Published: 5 December 2010



In the latest escalation of the battle on the roads, cyclists and motorists are arming themselves with miniature cameras to name, shame and prosecute law breakers.

The police, who describe the use of the cameras as “tremendously beneficial”, use the recordings to identify aggressive motorists who then receive a warning or are prosecuted.

Cyclists are leading the charge using cameras, fitted to helmets, that cost as little as £15 and are no bigger than a tube of lipstick. Some lorries and cars are also using cameras to catch “crash for cash” scams — in which gangs deliberately force rear-end collisions, costing insurance companies £35,000 on average and adding £45 to insurance premiums.

Manufacturers say they are considering introducing the cameras as standard in some models and insurance companies are beginning to offer lower premiums to drivers who install them.

One cyclist recently used his “helmet cam” to secure a conviction against a careless driver who ran him off the road.

In another, a van driver was cautioned for assault and had five points put on his licence after a cyclist’s camera caught him flinging a bottle of orange juice at him.

In lesser confrontations cyclists are getting revenge by simply posting footage of clearly identifiable drivers and their vehicles online.

Cyclists say the trend is a “technological fightback” to wrestle “equal respect” from the motorist but some drivers think the move is too aggressive.

In October, in one of the first cases of its type, Ben Porter, 37, a stagehand at a London theatre, saw the van driver who cut him up on his commute home in July convicted for careless driving after the offence was recorded on his helmet cam.

The footage shows the driver overtaking the cyclist as he approaches a junction, veering across his path and then slamming on his brakes and jumping out of the van to confront Porter, who had called out at him.

“The footage was crucial and was the difference between me being fobbed off with just having my complaint logged and the police actually doing something,” said Porter.

“I downloaded the footage to my phone and showed it to the officer at the station. They were very interested and acted on it straight away.”

Porter has recorded around 70 other less serious cases, which he has uploaded to the internet.

Last week Dave Brennan, 37, from Torrance, near Glasgow, whose case had been taken up by the police, was told by prosecutors that his video footage was insufficient. He is appealing against the decision.

Martin Porter, a barrister and cycling campaigner from Sunningdale, in Berkshire, recently had his case rejected after he recorded a motorist who shouted at him and threatened to kill him last month on a road near Hounslow, west London. He is also appealing.

“As a lawyer, it strikes me as very surprising indeed that such footage could be viewed as insufficient evidence,” he said.

Nick Chalmers, a detective chief inspector at the Met, runs the Roadsafe London scheme, which was launched nine months ago and allows any road user to submit reports of bad driving online.

Around two-thirds of the 1,500 reports to date have come from cyclists, some of which have included video footage. “Helmet cams are a great idea and I would encourage cyclists to use them,” said Chalmers.Sussex police operate a similar scheme and say about one in 10 of the 26,000 reports received since it was launched three years ago have come from cyclists.

The use of cameras that are fitted to vehicle windscreens and record a sweep of 140 degrees in front of the driver is also on the increase. Towergate, an insurance broker specialising in commercial vehicles, sells a policy that offers reduced premiums to lorry drivers who fit them.

The device recently identified an alleged “crash for cash” attempt on one of the company’s clients and three people have been charged as a result.

Larry Smith, the firm’s managing director, said the scheme has saved hundreds of thousands of pounds in false claims.

“It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies are offering similar products to private car owners,” he said.

“In some countries the cameras are being fitted as standard to private cars already.”

My bolds as I was surprised by this comment.

jeremyrundle

I have been driving with a video camera on my dashboard for almost ten years, nothing new to me, the instance I took up cycling I fitted front and rear headcams.

So far I have received a £50 apology from Boots, £25 from the Post office and a garden centre chain have made all their drivers watch one of them cutting me up at a roundabout during a training session.

spen666

Origamist wrote:

Spen, Dillemna - here you go:


...

My bolds as I was surprised by this comment.

Why did the comments surprise you?

I'd expect the police to welcome anything that makes it easier for them

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Spen, Dillemna - here you go:


...

My bolds as I was surprised by this comment.

Why did the comments surprise you?

I'd expect the police to welcome anything that makes it easier for them

I've been told by various police officers that they can't (be bothered to) view material or it's not admissable as evidence etc in the past. My experiences are not atypical - check out Martin Porter's similar experiences:

I had as requested taken the video along on a CD. 'Are you a licensed to take copies of videos...No, well then I am afraid we cannot use that video. If we were to use that in Court it would be thrown out'. (Not true).

Before I left I again offered my CD. No, he would not accept that and no it could not be passed on to Hounslow who were to investigate. If they took it any further they would require my camera for about 3 weeks.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/sear ... -results=7


This is the first senior police officer that I know who has gone on record and welcomed cyclists filming their commutes/rides.

zanes

Origamist wrote:

Spen, Dillemna - here you go:


...

My bolds as I was surprised by this comment.

Bearing in mind that certain sections of the police appear to believe photography in public places (certain ones or not) is illegal, I too find this surprising.*

FWIW (ie. very little) enough stories of the Police's inaction/action have convinced me to stay the hell away.


*Or, thinking about it, it could be them doing whatever the hell they want, as usual.

spen666

Origamist wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Spen, Dillemna - here you go:


...

My bolds as I was surprised by this comment.

Why did the comments surprise you?

I'd expect the police to welcome anything that makes it easier for them

I've been told by various police officers that they can't (be bothered to) view material or it's not admissable as evidence etc in the past. My experiences are not atypical - check out Martin Porter's similar experiences:

.....


This is the first senior police officer that I know who has gone on record and welcomed cyclists filming their commutes/rides.

My experience has been difference and police have welcomed video/ CCTV evidence

I appreciate this may not be representative of others experience

Valy

FUCK ME!

That is the scariest video I have seen from a helmet/bike cam...

It seemed like he actually slowed down to see what happened on the roundabout?