CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Hi
If you were the cyclist on Riversdale Crescent who was the victim of an attempted assault by a car passenger this evening (17/3 at around 5.25) then please let me know.
I was the other cyclist behind you and I have the entire incident captured on camera.
Advice question: for those who've had to make a police report, what is the best way to deal with camera evidence?
We shouldn't have to put up with this s**t just cycling home.
Others may have more sensible ideas, but I'd say get a clip up on Twitter and get the papers on to it, so that polis will have to agree to deal with it...
From when I asked the same question, the feedback from magnatom (who does this thing on a semi-regular basis) was to burn the entire video to a dvd and hand that over. Apparently that's preferred to just the relevant clip, for arcane evidence reasons...
Reluctant to put the clip up on Twitter as I want to see if the other cyclist wants to take it further.
I have mentioned it on Twitter to try and find the cyclist, so if you are one of my legions of followers (all 8 of them I think) then please share it (@pidginposting)
A totally minor incident (where the car driver was at fault) flares up just because someone is on a bike.
Burn the full clip on DVD without editing (!!), the full file exactly as it comes out of the camera. Don't put it on Youtube or Twitter (maybe later if you feel the incident has not been handled properly and you want to raise a fuss). This is based on info I got from officers when I asked them how to give them video evidence.
If in doubt, ask police first.
Reasons:
- if the clip is made public before the trial, it may jeopardise the trial.
- technical reasons, the police can't use internet evidence (apparently they can't even download something from dropbox link).
Edit: While they need the full unedited footage, I found it also helps to make a few relevant snapshots and send them to the police by email.
Also write down an account of what you saw as soon, as detailed and as neutral/observational as possible.
Yeah, I'd already retweeted. And agree you don't want to compromise. Just thinking a short clip might raise attention. But as Stephen suggests. Maybe give police first dibs. Then hit the EEN and Scotworstdriver
Oh, and I would just contact the police anyway and not wait until you find the other cyclist.
As the witness to a crime, I'd just go ahead and report it. The police will make reasonable attempts to track down the various parties involved and/or match it to any already reported.
I wouldn't make social media the first port of call on this occassion, as noted above such things could prejudice any prosecution in the future. If the police ain't interested then you can take the different tack.
One of the police forces wrote an excellent article on this - but I can't find it. May have been @Trafficwmp on Twitter who for a while clearly had postings from someone who saw bike users as human/vulnerable. Stopped following them after a while because the helpful/positive cycling-friendly posts stopped.
The advice I remember was:
Don't post on social media.
Don't get your hopes up - even video evidence directly taken by the police isn't treated particularly seriously in reality - so cut them some slack if they tell you that there's not a lot they can do. (Take my word for it that this was meant positively)
Remember that if you're the person cycling the film will also show up any of your own faults.
Thanks for the advice all.
Reviewing the footage a couple of times it's clear that neither I or the other cyclist did anything wrong. These are quiet back streets with parked cars either side, so there is a limit to what we could do and it happened about 100 yards from the exit of Roseburn Park.
Without going into details, this was completely unwarranted. I'll wait over the weekend in case the other chap make contact, otherwise it's police on Monday.
"even video evidence directly taken by the police isn't treated particularly seriously in reality"
I've never understood this. Especially when trials like the Hatton Park robbery made such use of cctv footage.
It doesn't seem either consistent or logical to me.
(I'm not saying you're wrong, but that the police seem to have an inconsistent policy.)
"It doesn't seem either consistent or logical to me."
Yes, consider the usage after the 2011 riots.
Sounds more like "We'll see if we can be bothered, but if we can't (highly likely), we don't want to be publicly shamed" to me.
I don't suppose you are on Strava? you could check the "flyby" feature to see if they are too? (or anyone else who might have been passing round that time)
I was about 20 minutes after that, so out-with the flyby time window....
"Sounds more like "We'll see if we can be bothered, but if we can't (highly likely), we don't want to be publicly shamed" to me."
I get the same impression.
Just imagine a murder where the only evidence is video camera footage and the word of the person with the camera.
Are they going to decide against prosecution?
They treat some crimes seriously and some - including most crimes against cyclists - as not worth the trouble.
And just because there's proof doesn't change whether or not they care.
@Disco Dave: good thinking, will check later....
A brief overview of corroboration:
- 2 witnesses are required to corroborate.
- Technically a murderer making a confession, but there being absolutely no other evidence whatsoever, means that murderer could not be found guilty.
- CCTV / video footage / forensic evidence is not a 'witness'.
- expert validation of forensic evidence is a 'witness'.
- An independent third party reviewing CCTV and positively identifying an accused is a witness.
- Technically the same could apply to a helmetcam video. The person shooting it would be one witness (they saw it with their eyes) and someone (the police usually) identifying the suspect from the footage would be another witness.
- Helmetcam footage of a car passing too closely etc. is all fine and well, but if the driver is not positively visible and identifiable... How can there be a second witness? (unless you catch up and have a word through the driver's window, with there having been no chance for the driver to change).
Now, in something as serious as an actual assault I'd expect it to be taken seriously, and the 'positive id' from the footage to be useable as a 'witness'. Of course this shouldn't be necessary because the person suffering the assault, plus the filmer, are both witnesses. In this case the footage would be used as evidence in its purest form.
I do think the police are often easily bashed, and certainly there are some instances (that get publicised, and therefore make it appear the norm) where they could do better, but against the background of public sector cuts, low morale, and frankly the neddish muppets they have to deal with on a regular basis, I personally think they do a superb job (and I do think in this instance they'd try to do something about it even without the assaulted cyclist as a witness).
"Helmetcam footage of a car passing too closely etc. is all fine and well, but if the driver is not positively visible and identifiable... How can there be a second witness? (unless you catch up and have a word through the driver's window, with there having been no chance for the driver to change)."
The driver not being observed should not matter, even in Scotland. The cyclist observing the car reg and camera footage allowing the police to corroborate same should be enough for police to issue a Section 172 notice to the DVLA registered keeper of the vehicle, who is then legally compelled to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time. Should the registered keeper not satisfy this requirement within the time limit, they are generally found guilty themselves of failing to furnish the driver's details, which offence carries 6 penalty points and a fine of <£1000.
That's the theory, anyway... otherwise, how could unmanned speed cameras ever work in Scotland?
Certain motoring offences do not require corroboration (speeding and running lights being two) which allow them to be monitored by cameras.
Also the rights given to the prosecuting authorities in the laws on using cameras is specifically for those cameras for those offences. So the licence detail, with which the notices can be issued, can only come from those official police cameras.
They can use the licence details from helmetcams to identify the vehicle owner, and go and have a word, but they can't compel the owner to identify the driver from it.
Actually, it appears if the police are investigating a road traffic violation they are allowed to ask for the driver details under s.172. Interesting.
Still couldn't be used on its own though, as it needs to be corroborated. So in practice the police wouldn't issue a s.172 notice, because if it got to court there'd be no corroboration (the first statement above holds true, running red lights, speeding, etc, if caught by a police camera doesn't require corroboration).
Do police cameras have special magic?
@WC
It's my understanding that speeding does require corroboration in Scots law. For cameras, the driver's 'admission' is the signed S172 notice and the camera photos are the corroboration. This leaves a potential loophole for drivers in Scotland around not signing the S172 notice which has never been properly closed as it was in England.
As you say, for some reason disobeying traffic signals does not require corroboration.
On camera footage/corroboration - and the infamous 'cereal drivers':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25087651
http://www.scotlandsworstdrivers.com/cereal-offender-fined-for-careless-driving-1-4695/
how did the police manage to charge & convict at least one armed with only a third party's headcam video?
Besides, all this is rather moot for the current thread given it was the passenger rather than the driver who was the main offender, unless there were preceding motoring offences. Drivers seem to be held to very little responsibility over their adult passengers beyond ensuring they wear their seatbelts.
On related legalities, I'm not sure "attempted assault" is a 'thing' in Scotland, if the miscreant didn't actually manage to make contact. Probably Breach of the Peace if anything.
That's a good point: don't know what actual crime may have been committed but I'm pretty sure there was one:
If in the purely hypothetical situation that a car passenger was to swear agressively, threaten violence and then get out of a vehicle to chase a cyclist along the road, while continuing to swear and threaten violence, what offences may have taken place?
Assault? Breach of the peace?
What The Boy said. Plus Threatening or Abusive Behaviour is an offence in itself in Scotland.
"Do police cameras have special magic?"
Yes. They are calibrated, checked, official.
"the driver's 'admission' is the signed S172 notice and the camera photos are the corroboration"
Not quite. The driver's admission is confirmation of what is in the photo and no independent 2nd witness is therefore required for the confession. The photo itself isn't corroboration (it doesn't identify an individual, so no way it can actually be used to identify). The driver's confession is one 'witness', which is sufficient then for speeding.
"how did the police manage to charge & convict at least one armed with only a third party's headcam video?"
Because, when shown the video, the driver confessed it was them. That, taken with the witness being the cyclist (using the evidence of his eyes and not the camera) provides two witnesses who corroborate.
But yes, in this case there's assault etc. as noted above, so there needs to be corroboration.
Hi Guys,
Late to this, but Wilmington's Cow is correct in what he says, especially with regards to corroboration. I have spoken to the PF in the past and been informed that helmet camera footage isn't corroboration in itself, but if in court an expert witness views the footage and suggests 'a pass was too close my Lord' then it is corroborating.
One slight disagreement though... the police have used S172 to compel drivers for identity, where I have not caught the driver on camera. I had one case where this occurred. The driver admitted that he was the driver and driving along the road that evening. On my footage you can't make out the car registration, but you can hear me shouting it out. The make of car isn't 100% clear (although I was never asked that in court and the police officer afterwards also agreed that he could identify it).
In the end the Justice of the Peace (i.e. a newbie), agreed that the close pass passed the standard of driving for dangerous (not contact made), but because we could not see the registration on the video, that the identity of the car and thus driver could not be 100% certain. He was acquitted!
The reality was, statistically speaking for me to shout out a registration that happened to be a car, that happened to drive along the road and happened to look like the right type of car, with a driver who happened to admit that he drove along that road, in that direction, that evening, at approximately that time... It was him. The JP was a fool, if I'm honest....
Bah!
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts