User deleted post
Police did nothing with this footage of car doing multiple illegal things... how many can you spot?
It baffles me how easy the state turned some people into the stasi.
There's no excuse for the driving but everyone recording each other all the time so we can report every transgression cannot end well.
So driving like this shouldn't be reported? If you want to go with "back in the day it wouldn't get reported" surely you must know it wouldn't have been gotten away with even without the dashcam someone would have reported it and most likely there would have been a policeman on the street to see it happening
So driving like this shouldn't be reported
The question is do you want to live like an east German under the stasi?
If the answer isn't yes then you cannot forever be recording and trying to police everyone else's actions. The stasi stooges felt justified at the time too, but ran into trouble when society rebelled against it.
Difference here is evidence.
"My neighbour listens to french music" was all the evidence needed for a family to disappear.
This is submitting dashcam footage of people driving like bellends.
If the police were to actually act on these submissions with a PCN or something, then maybe people would think twice about breaking the law of they knew there was a higher chance they get caught.
People are too comfortable behaving like twats behind the wheel and forget that they are heavy machinery that can easily kill people.
When I become chancellor of Britain, I will rule traffic with an iron fist. Driving too fast? Jail. Driving too slow? Also jail. Cutting off a corner when you're making a right turn? Straight to jail.
You mentioned Germany, but dashcams are actually illegal in Germany due to privacy laws that forbid indiscriminate recording of public spaces.
I would like to live, which behaviour such as that exhibited by the car in the clip puts at risk. Call it stasi all you like, I dont really care and hope pricks like this get prosecuted. They raise insurance premiums for us all, they make it more dangerous to go out for us all, why should we let them get away with it?
Just jumping in the conversation- insurance companies don't need drivers like this to increase your premiums. They'll blame them for sure but that's sod all to do with why your premium goes up.
They'll increase premiums to whatever they think they can get away with and blame it on insurance scams, bad drivers, new cars being more expensive to repair and any other guff that comes to mind.
Because. You. Have. To. Buy. It.
It's all BS. They'll still fight tooth and nail not to pay out and things that should matter- points for example, make little difference because your cost is already overinflated.
All sounds convincing until you understand that they don't make any money on private motor insurance. That's a fact, by the way.
You're gonna have to add some kind of extra information there because from my (albeit brief) googling I can't find anything to back that statement up...
Edit- in fact by it's very nature if they can base the cost of premiums on expected losses they can make their own profit by exaggerating them.
Depends where you are. I'm referring to uk insurers. They don't split out their reporting by product lines so you won't find it our from there. I've worked in the industry for years. My company won't touch private motor as there is no money in it.
Carry on being baffled, what retrospective action would you realistically expect the police to be able to make from this video alone?
Edit: I didn’t initially notice the zigzags and solids white lines, I thought OP’s main complaint was the speeding whilst overtaking. That overtake could constitute as dangerous driving which potentially carries a penalty of points. Surprising they decided not to take action then
3 points and a fine? Same as I got for doing like 12% over the speed limit on a motorbike
Whilst you and I both know the smart car was likely exceeding the 20mph limit, to legally be able to prosecute for a speeding offence, an actual speed travelled at has to be ascertained to be able to prove this, otherwise it wouldn’t hold up in court. This video alone can’t prove that, so what action can the police realistically take from this?
It could provide the speed, but it would not be economically worth it for anyone to find it out.
The met can’t even stop people being robbed at sword point on busy streets during the day…
Too busy fumbling about trying to protect what little reputation they have while officer after officer within their ranks are charged with being rapists, stalkers, murderers, kidnappers & nonces.
What did you expect ?
Don’t forget the time they spend prosecuting people for being offensive on the internet! They can hardly be expected to deal with silly things like this.
If I wanted to be pedantic I could argue away, with links to relevant laws, pretty much every move they made. I’m only saying this because that’s probably why no action was taken.
It seems crazy right? They were obviously speeding. But the only illegal thing I could find in the video happens for 1 second, and you have to zoom, and could still be argued away due to the road surface.
19:20:07 to 19:20:09 is the only timestamp I could find something that maybe could hold up.
What did I miss? I’m honestly afraid here to list why the other things could be argued away because someone would think I was defending this driver who is clearly a nut job.
Edit for more info; the solid white line you see is labelled 1049 on: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made
Legally, it’s insignificant to an overtake. It’s not a double white line with one or both being solid (1013.1 A,B or D).
It looks like it was erroneously painted alongside a keep clear (1026 on the same page).
Not the wisest place to perform on overtake due to the upcoming railroad crossing, however not actually illegal, ultimately what action would you expect the police to take due to this video?
You can’t ascertain the speed he was travelling at from this video alone, so wouldn’t be able to prosecute for that as it wouldn’t uphold in court.
Also the smart car was already performing the overtake before the cyclist turned onto the road, cyclist should have stopped and waited for a moment until it was clear
It is illegal. Zig zag lines and solid white line
I thought the zigzag lines didn't count if you were moving away from the thing they're around, like in that case they're obviously there to protect the zebra crossing so its a case of don't overtake/filter past the first car approaching the crossing because you can't see who's on the crossing and might hit them. But when moving away from the crossing or whatever it is then it's ok, because you're already past the hazard?
(this is a genuine question btw)
Correct. It's Regulation 28 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 if you're interested (these seem to be in force still, despite the 2016 regulations also being a thing)
Edit - nope the 2002 regulations have been revoked but it's in the 2016 regulations as well, word for word identically
I suppose in theory this could be considered an illegal overtake which falls under dangerous driving, so perhaps points could be given, however it seems that police don’t seem this to be worthy enough to take action for some reason.
It’s not just illegal in theory, it’s just straight up illegal.
True about the police not seeming it big enough to warrant action though
The Zig Zags aren't as you'd think; as the driver had gone beyond the crossing itself the overtake is fine with respect to the zig-zag/pedestrian crossing regs only. The offences for overtaking only apply on approach to, and overtaking a moving motor vehicle that is travelling towards the crossing or is stationary to comply with the regulations around the crossing (i.e. giving way to pedestrians).
However I would argue it's careless; now whether or not the police have resolved this with an EFPN, a driver awareness course or not the OP probably wouldn't know. The only time the informant would know what's happened to the driver would be if they were summoned to court as a witness, which I'm assuming OP agreed to do by ticking the back of the MG11T ('I am willing to attend court') because if they said no they're unlikely to prosecute at all.
The close pass of the oncoming cyclist.
Outside a school, zebra crossing, level crossing it all seems under the dangerous driving / no care and attention etc
The cyclist turned onto the road while the smart car had already begun to overtake
Oh good spot
I saw no use of indicators, definitely going faster than 20mph - but to prove it from video like this costs a lot of man hours for simply a speeding fine. His overtake I would call legal (apart from the speeding aspect).
Not in the publics interests sadly.
There needs to be clear and unadulterated dangerous driving for the police to take action.
Edited to remove bad info
Edit: cyclist was at fault for failing to give wait to main road I think actually. Zoomed in and frame by frame on that.
Overtook before the solid line.
I was going to remove my comment here. I looked closely. The solid line there legally means nothing (TSRGD Schedule 6) and so doesn’t matter. I’ve actually gone through and for 1 second the driver straddles a poorly painted double white line which is illegal. But for 1 second only and you have to zoom.
Mate well done :) I’m not arguing with someone who researches! I concede
Im saying you were right. I was wrong. Except; there is a double white line on the actual rail crossing. But it’s very short and poorly painted. I’m not taking a false win.
You must complete the overtake before reaching the solid white line.
This is the bit that’s weird here is that the law is about double white lines where one or both are solid. TSRGD defines these single thick solid lines differently. I can’t find any law for crossing them. Case in point the solid thick line separating the hard shoulder, or a bus lane when it’s not in operation.
I thought at first about the solid line, but I think legally without being double it means nothing.
It’s number 1049 defined here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made
It means nothing in the context of an overtake.
It looks like it was erroneously painted alongside the keep clear (1026) and perhaps was meant to be double, or not, we don’t know. It’s not used properly either way.
That's an interesting link, however the line there is a boundary line, for example a bus lane, cycle lane etc - which this obviously is not.
Given that the solid single line then becomes a solid double line, and then a broken on one side double line, I would guess it's supposed to be a double white line.
Regardless of a legal definition I certainly wouldn't cross it unless I had to do so to get past a stationary vehicle, or because I was turning right.
"Single White Line: This indicates the center of the road. If the line is solid, overtaking is discouraged. A broken line permits overtaking if it’s safe."
So, it's not illegal, but I have no doubt that it crossing the line could be used towards a charge of driving without due care and attention, or of dangerous driving.
I think if it’s not defined in TSRGD and there’s no law to prevent you crossing it; the police won’t prosecute… that’s what I was getting at.
What I would or wouldn’t do I would agree. But objectively from the point of view of deciding to prosecute or not… it was a clear overtake when it began.
The driver can argue they checked it was clear and did pay due care and attention.
Would I have done it? Hell no. Was it illegal? Debatably for a second.
I agree with you - they almost certainly wouldn't prosecute just for crossing the solid white line, but in the context of that video I have no doubt it could be used towards a general charge for the standard of driving.
I would address all the points. The cyclist for instance; was not actually on the main road. They entered either the wrong way from a one way adjoining road or without giving way to traffic on the main road (law, give way to all traffic all directions any speed already on the main road) and put themselves into the path of a vehicle they should have given way to (their priority doesn’t exempt them from giving way).
The roundabout at the start I looked at and they got on to the roundabout first I think. And here I’m not sure about the wording of the law, since you’re supposed to look out for traffic already on the roundabout and to the right. Since they’d already established, I think they had priority. I couldn’t be sure.
Their speed can’t be proved. You could reasonably measure it but it wouldn’t hold.
I’d write them a letter telling them to stop driving like a c••• and probably call it a day. It wouldn’t be a slam dunk in court so…
But in general; it’s clear from their manner that they’re impatient and probably a danger to others with that style
Overtook on a solid white line?
This is dangerous driving and at very least driving without due care and attention. If I’m seeing this on duty he’s 100% getting a TOR.
Then it’s a shame police as good as you are not reviewing these videos, if you are a copper can you explain why this video has been rejected? Any political, budget or personnel reasons?
When did you send it in?
People like this get away with their extremely dangerous driving while the average joe paying full attention driving down a straight road with full clear visibility will get popped for doing 55 in a 50.
Jesus Christ. Police need not wonder why they’re hated
Had this up a while back but took it down and sent this to the police, but they haven't done anything. so thought i'll just post back it here.
This is in London by Mortlake Station. This little smart car does some serious dangerous driving.
How do you know they have done nothing…..asking for a friend.
They will get back to you within 6 weeks if they are taking action.
You have no right to know what they are doing with what you reported unless you are the victim. So no, that’s not true.
Probably doesn’t want anyone to see him driving a Smart car, fair
Pop some eyelashes on the front and pretend it's the wife's
Overtaking on the zig zags? That's all I've got and I'm not sure if it is illegal as it's after the crossing.
This is the second time I've seen this clip on this sub.
Get lost with the spam.
Read my comment
I did. This is just spamming updates on a mundane video of nothing happening.
It's spam.
This contributes literally zero new content to this sub.
Much like this comment. Life goes on.
Bookmarked for the next time I hear "WaR oN MoToRiSts" 🙄
Maybe they just got notified, the house was on fire, a parent just collapsed at home or their child suffered an emergency at school.....
I’d be surprised if any dashcam footage, alone, leads to a prosecution.
No chain of custody, no reliable timestamps, nothing. Smart car driver just says “it wasn’t me” and that’s the end of it.
It baffles me that drivers like this get off Scott free but heaven forbid you go 5mph over the limit, that'll be 3 points and a fine please.