Why can't gardai prosecute drivers based on dashcam footage?

batman1

I recently witnessed some dangerous driving where a car had overtaken my car aggressively on a double white line in a 60 km zone. I was driving behind cyclists but was still moving around 50km/hr.

Thinking I was a good citizen , I reported said car to the gardai and told them I had dashcam footage of the incident. I was told they didn't want it and no action would be taken unless I was willing to give a statement and go to court.

Why can the not use dashcam footage for this type of thing when the dashcam has all the info regarding position, speed etc embedded in it?

hullaballoo

They need someone to give evidence including technical information on how the footage was recorded and verifying its contents, including having that evidence being put to the test under cross examination to prove that the video is genuine, has not been tampered with and accurately depicts the events it purports to show

Thinking about it from that perspective should show you how there might be problems with prosecuting people on the basis of a video some random Joe brings in from the street.

Lenar3556

batman1 wrote: »

I recently witnessed some dangerous driving where a car had overtaken my car aggressively on a double white line in a 60 km zone. I was driving behind cyclists but was still moving around 50km/hr.

Thinking I was a good citizen , I reported said car to the gardai and told them I had dashcam footage of the incident. I was told they didn't want it and no action would be taken unless I was willing to give a statement and go to court.

Why can the not use dashcam footage for this type of thing when the dashcam has all the info regarding position, speed etc embedded in it?

It may well be usable if you were prepared to make a statement and give evidence in court.

BattleCorp

Also, your dashcam isn't calibrated so things like speed etc. wouldn't be accurate enough for court.

batman1

Speed is based on GPS which has a standard used everywhere.

Aside from the speed I just thought it odd that it was dismissed by the gardai.

If a dashcam , CCTV , or any other video footage sees a crime take place is it the same for that? For example if video footage exists of someone being shot, no other witnesses but the offender is clearly identified is it not usable for prosecution?

kenmm

batman1 wrote: »

Speed is based on GPS which has a standard used everywhere.

Police don't use GPS tho, they use calibrated equipment. GPS isn't always that accurate and subject to environmental factors. Depending on what device you use, these may be more prominent.

Esel

batman1 wrote: »

I recently witnessed some dangerous driving where a car had overtaken my car aggressively on a double white line in a 60 km zone. I was driving behind cyclists but was still moving around 50km/hr.

Thinking I was a good citizen , I reported said car to the gardai and told them I had dashcam footage of the incident. I was told they didn't want it and no action would be taken unless I was willing to give a statement and go to court.

Why can the not use dashcam footage for this type of thing when the dashcam has all the info regarding position, speed etc embedded in it?

The 'unless' is key above. If you *were* prepared to give a statement and go to court, they would probably want your camera footage then.

coylemj

kenmm wrote: »

Police don't use GPS tho, they use calibrated equipment. GPS isn't always that accurate and subject to environmental factors.

By 'calibrated equipment' I assume you're referring to speed cameras. You can't use GPS on the side of the road to measure the speed of a moving object.

Which 'environmental factors' affect the accuracy of GPS - fog, rain, heat?

GPS devices are programmed to not provide any location data until they have signals from at least 4 satellites. At which point they can give accurate location data and (if you're moving), speed and direction data.

SmartinMartin

At last! A caped Crusader for traffic!

kenmm

coylemj wrote: »

By 'calibrated equipment' I assume you're referring to speed cameras. You can't use GPS on the side of the road to measure the speed of a moving object.

Which 'environmental factors' affect the accuracy of GPS - fog, rain, heat?

GPS devices are programmed to not provide any location data until they have signals from at least 4 satellites. At which point they can give accurate location data and (if you're moving), speed and direction data.

Also the radar systems built into the cars.

GPS is affected by large structures for example. Ask anyone who runs through cities and they will often report skewed recordings as the signals bounce of all the steel and glass. Most devices know how to compensate for this, but not all the time and not always possible.

Edit: environmental in terms of local environment/infra, not natural.

SchrodingersCat

I would have thought that the video of them overtaking on double white lines should be enough. I guess they believe that the incident is too minor for them to want to follow it up.

With regards the speeding, it's more difficult to make a case.
If the dashcam has GPS, the speed will be pretty accurate, probably more so than your speedometer. However, it will only tell you the speed of your vehicle, not theirs. Yes, you could tell that they are travelling faster than you. But it would be difficult to accurately determine how much. Even if you could, there would be a lot of areas where a good defence solicitor could poke holes in the evidence.

As others have said, the Gardai prosecute speeding using their own calibrated equipment and calibrated speed vans and cameras. Your dashcam would not be calibrated to the same level. It would also be easier to tamper with your camera.

coylemj

batman1 wrote: »

If a dashcam , CCTV , or any other video footage sees a crime take place is it the same for that? For example if video footage exists of someone being shot, no other witnesses but the offender is clearly identified is it not usable for prosecution?

You got your answer in the first response, from poster hullabaloo. A video alone will never convict anyone. You need a witness to say how the event was recorded and (in the case of your traffic video), that you saw the same event and the video supplied by you is a true record of the event and was not manipulated in any way.

By your first post, you seem to think that you can simply e-mail a video file to the Gardai and they can use that to secure a conviction. They can’t.

bobbyy gee

Most video is illegal in Ireland unless it's on. Private property

coylemj

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Most video is illegal in Ireland unless it's on. Private property

'Most video'? Which video which is not shot on private property is legal? If it's not all illegal?

Padre_Pio

batman1 wrote: »

Speed is based on GPS which has a standard used everywhere.

Aside from the speed I just thought it odd that it was dismissed by the gardai.

If a dashcam , CCTV , or any other video footage sees a crime take place is it the same for that? For example if video footage exists of someone being shot, no other witnesses but the offender is clearly identified is it not usable for prosecution?

Gps is a decent judge of speed, but how do we know YOUR dashcam is a decent judge? Is it calibrated? Maybe it's a cheapo old one with crap software?

You can't judge how fast someone is going purely from a video, and you need to know exactly how fast.
The statement "sure I was doing 50 and he overtook me" isn't good enough.

That said, Gardai request dashcam footage all the time and have networks of surveillance cameras. It's all useful, maybe just not on its own.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

They need someone to give evidence including technical information on how the footage was recorded and verifying its contents, including having that evidence being put to the test under cross examination to prove that the video is genuine, has not been tampered with and accurately depicts the events it purports to show

Thinking about it from that perspective should show you how there might be problems with prosecuting people on the basis of a video some random Joe brings in from the street.

coylemj wrote: »

You got your answer in the first response, from poster hullabaloo. A video alone will never convict anyone. You need a witness to say how the event was recorded and (in the case of your traffic video), that you saw the same event and the video supplied by you is a true record of the event and was not manipulated in any way.

By your first post, you seem to think that you can simply e-mail a video file to the Gardai and they can use that to secure a conviction. They can’t.

Both of these. The "best evidence" rule means that if you are relying on recordings, records, documents, etc to prove your case, then you need evidence to prove how, where, when etc the recording, etc was made. There are some statutory exceptions for official records like birth certificates, blood/alcohol certificates, etc, which are justified by the statutory controls and safeguards on how those particular records are created but the default position is that a record of any kind needs to be backed up by a live witness who can testity as to the making of the record (and who can be cross-examined by the defendant, who may want to challenge the reliability or accuracy of the record).

Lenar3556

coylemj wrote: »

You got your answer in the first response, from poster hullabaloo. A video alone will never convict anyone. You need a witness to say how the event was recorded and (in the case of your traffic video), that you saw the same event and the video supplied by you is a true record of the event and was not manipulated in any way.

By your first post, you seem to think that you can simply e-mail a video file to the Gardai and they can use that to secure a conviction. They can’t.

Having said that they could investigate the matter on the strength of the submitted video alone, and interview the owner of the car.

Such a course may have the effect of preventing a reoccurrence of the alleged bad driving which I am presuming is the outcome the OP is ultimately after.

If you feel strongly about it, I would submit the video to the local superintendent.

Padre_Pio

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Having said that they could investigate the matter on the strength of the submitted video alone, and interview the owner of the car.

Such a course may have the effect of preventing a reoccurrence of the alleged bad driving which I am presuming is the outcome the OP is ultimately after.

If you feel strongly about it, I would submit the video to the local superintendent.

In China they have a system whereby if someone is convicted of a driving offence based on dashcam footage, the guy who submitted the footage gets a payout.

Its created a cadre of people who force others into dangerous situations so they can record them and cash in.

coylemj

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Having said that they could investigate the matter on the strength of the submitted video alone, and interview the owner of the car.

Such a course may have the effect of preventing a reoccurrence of the alleged bad driving which I am presuming is the outcome the OP is ultimately after.

Total waste of time. Bad motorists take no heed of warnings. The only thing that registers with is a motoring conviction which costs them money in terms of a large fine and/or a hike in their insurance. Otherwise they will not change their habits.

We all know the bad drivers that are out there, some of them are our work colleagues and family members - the people you avoid taking a lift from. Virtually every day they drive, they experience near misses caused by reckless overtaking or speeding. They just don't care.

Lenar3556 wrote: »

If you feel strongly about it, I would submit the video to the local superintendent.

Which, you expect, will achieve exactly what?

Lenar3556

coylemj wrote: »

Total waste of time. Bad motorists take no heed of warnings. The only thing that registers with is a motoring conviction which costs them money in terms of a large fine and/or a hike in their insurance. Otherwise they will not change their habits.

We all know the bad drivers that are out there, some of them are our work colleagues and family members - the people you avoid taking a lift from. Virtually every day they drive, they experience near misses caused by reckless overtaking or speeding. They just don't care.



Which, you expect, will achieve exactly what?

I wouldn’t agree that is necessarily the case, many of us have had the benefit of a warning or telling off from gardai that put us back on the right track and caused us to think before repeating the behaviour.
Indeed such an approach is at the core of the means of policing adopted in Ireland.

Peregrinus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Having said that they could investigate the matter on the strength of the submitted video alone, and interview the owner of the car.

Such a course may have the effect of preventing a reoccurrence of the alleged bad driving which I am presuming is the outcome the OP is ultimately after.

If you feel strongly about it, I would submit the video to the local superintendent.

It's a matter of resource allocation. The guards are reluctant to divert resources to an investigation which they already know is unlikely to lead to a charge or conviction because the key prosecution witness is uncooperative.

And it would be particularly rich of the key prosecution witness to demand that they do. His own attitude is the main reason why they don't.

Pkiernan

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Most video is illegal in Ireland unless it's on. Private property

Lol.

Op...why wont you testify in court?

AndrewJRenko

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Most video is illegal in Ireland unless it's on. Private property

So you're saying all those Garda appeals for dashcam footage of incidents are looking for illegal videos?

bobbyy gee

a garda has to witness the crime to prosecute

jelem

All can be assessed from cam footage- the garda do not want to foot the bill for analysis.
you Now need to drag a dead body into station and haul it over the counter for which you may face
words of data protection act\civil issue\hire a solicitor etc.,
majority dont even know what is on the garda home page.
this is also a means of defence for garda as seen with "media altering etc." with
corrib and other incidents.

jelem

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you're saying all those Garda appeals for dashcam footage of incidents are looking for illegal videos?

" politicised" NEED for action hence call for footage.
when garda "need" evidence they are open armed

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

" politicised" NEED for action hence call for footage.
when garda "need" evidence they are open armed

They're not going to call for footage if the recording of that footage was illegal. There is nothing illegal about recording video or taking photos in a public place.

bobbyy gee wrote: »

a garda has to witness the crime to prosecute

That's not true. They can prosecute based on video footage IF you submit a statement and are prepared to go to Court. I've had several drivers getting fine and penalty points for using their phone at the wheel based on video footage from my helmetcam.

They don't make it easy though. They don't seem to have any consistent rules for accepting video footage. I've gone through a bunch of USB keys and you don't get them back. I've been told that I have to hold on to the original hi-res video footage myself in case it actually goes to Court.

They're also quite enthusiastic about finding reasons not to progress a complaint. I rarely get a feeling that they actually want people to report traffic offences.

In the UK, you can submit footage and details to several police forces via this portal, and they will issue points based on that alone. These cases can go to Court also.

I don't like the fact that they're using a commercial provider for the online portal for submitting complaints though.

https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

McCrack

^ another caped crusader

AndrewJRenko

McCrack wrote: »

^ another caped crusader

No cape, but do you not think that drivers who use their phones need to get a clear message about the danger of this?

McCrack

Of course, I'll leave that up to the RSA and An Garda Siochana

AndrewJRenko

McCrack wrote: »

Of course, I'll leave that up to the RSA and An Garda Siochana

Clearly, the RSA and Garda messages still aren't getting through, when we have the majority of drivers admitting to using their phones while driving.

I really don't understand why more people aren't making these reports.

McCrack

Because most people have better things to be doing than "reporting" minor road traffic offences.

Except for the few like yourself that are obsessive about it.

I think more busybody and also garda attention needs to be given to the many cyclists that sail through red lights, quite dangerous for the cyclist themselves.

coylemj

bobbyy gee wrote: »

a garda has to witness the crime to prosecute

If that's the case, how do you suppose stores get people convicted for shoplifting?

The individual Garda who prosecutes a case does not have to be a witness to the crime.

jelem

McCrack wrote: »

Of course, I'll leave that up to the RSA and An Garda Siochana

ha ha ha hahaha hahahaha wake up please

AndrewJRenko

McCrack wrote: »

Because most people have better things to be doing than "reporting" minor road traffic offences.

Except for the few like yourself that are obsessive about it.

I think more busybody and also garda attention needs to be given to the many cyclists that sail through red lights, quite dangerous for the cyclist themselves.

What difference does it make to you whether I have better things to do or not?

Is it not a good thing that dangerous drivers get addressed by the Gardai?

You can divert all the Garda hours you want away from dealing with dangerous drivers to go chasing cyclists. That won't reduce the death toll on the reoad.

Padre_Pio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What difference does it make to you whether I have better things to do or not?

Is it not a good thing that dangerous drivers get addressed by the Gardai?

You can divert all the Garda hours you want away from dealing with dangerous drivers to go chasing cyclists. That won't reduce the death toll on the reoad.

When you see comments like McCrack's, it not worth looking for answers.
You'd find better reason in the comments section of TheJournal.