Reporting dangerous driving

tommyedinburgh

shaun_from_Africa said:

tommyedinburgh said:

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

Do you mean the screenshots that don't show anything that could possibly identity the driver, the vehicle or the person (me) who did the filming?

Of course. 

Car_54

tommyedinburgh said:

452 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

MinuteNoodles said:

It would be interesting to actually view the recorded video of it as often it turns out in situations like this that dashcam boy has sped up to create a situation for camera that needn't have occurred.

Also if you read the Highway Code it'll mention about giving way to overtaking vehicles so the fact you had to slow a little isn't any indication.

The person most likely misjudged it, just as I'm sure you've made plenty of misjudgements in your time. Nobody died, nobody got hurt, all that happened was people had to use the pedal that's provided to slow their vehicles down.

I didn't speed up. I was initially doing 48 mph (it's a 50 mph limit) and slowed to about 40 mph when I noticed the van overtaking. The reason I've not posted the full video is because it's been passed to the police (do you think I would have done that if it showed me speeding up to try to cause an accident?).

No, it wasn't a simple misjudgement. The van driver was just about at the speed limit so to overtake required them to exceed the limit and there was an oncoming car with headlight on so clearly visible and there were two entrances to the road, one of which is shown in the pictures.
You also seem to have missed the point that the driver of the oncoming car didn't just have to "slow a little". They had to almost stop and pull hard left to avoid having a head on impact.

The fact that you seem to think that this was a simply a misjudgement could say a lot about your standard of driving.

Thing is you have started a thread and posted the pictures online. That is enough for the police to lose interest and bin it. 

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

The van owner could not be charged with any driving offence, unless he identified himself.

He (or the registered keeper, if different) would be asked to identify the driver.

If the driver was to be charged, is there any reason why the photos (or the video footage - which has not been published)  would be inadmissable?  This is not Perry Mason, there is no jury to be prejudiced.

Car_54

452 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

tommyedinburgh said:

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

Do you mean the screenshots that don't show anything that could possibly identity the driver, the vehicle or the person (me) who did the filming?

Yes those ones, unless you're saying the footage used in court has a different van and is on a different road. You put it out in the public domain, it probably doesn't matter with a traffic offence but if it were say a murder there'd be an argument for charging you. 

With what?

shaun_from_Africa

tommyedinburgh said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

tommyedinburgh said:

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

Do you mean the screenshots that don't show anything that could possibly identity the driver, the vehicle or the person (me) who did the filming?

Of course. 

In which case, why would a couple of photographs of a van in which the registration plate can't been seen and the driver can't be seen have any effect on a possible prosecution?

452 said:

Thing is you have started a thread and posted the pictures online. That is enough for the police to lose interest and bin it. 

I do wish you would make your mind up:

452 said:

Yes those ones, unless you're saying the footage used in court has a different van and is on a different road. You put it out in the public domain, it probably doesn't matter with a traffic offence but if it were say a murder there'd be an argument for charging you. 

452

Car_54 said:

tommyedinburgh said:

452 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

MinuteNoodles said:

It would be interesting to actually view the recorded video of it as often it turns out in situations like this that dashcam boy has sped up to create a situation for camera that needn't have occurred.

Also if you read the Highway Code it'll mention about giving way to overtaking vehicles so the fact you had to slow a little isn't any indication.

The person most likely misjudged it, just as I'm sure you've made plenty of misjudgements in your time. Nobody died, nobody got hurt, all that happened was people had to use the pedal that's provided to slow their vehicles down.

I didn't speed up. I was initially doing 48 mph (it's a 50 mph limit) and slowed to about 40 mph when I noticed the van overtaking. The reason I've not posted the full video is because it's been passed to the police (do you think I would have done that if it showed me speeding up to try to cause an accident?).

No, it wasn't a simple misjudgement. The van driver was just about at the speed limit so to overtake required them to exceed the limit and there was an oncoming car with headlight on so clearly visible and there were two entrances to the road, one of which is shown in the pictures.
You also seem to have missed the point that the driver of the oncoming car didn't just have to "slow a little". They had to almost stop and pull hard left to avoid having a head on impact.

The fact that you seem to think that this was a simply a misjudgement could say a lot about your standard of driving.

Thing is you have started a thread and posted the pictures online. That is enough for the police to lose interest and bin it. 

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

The van owner could not be charged with any driving offence, unless he identified himself.

He (or the registered keeper, if different) would be asked to identify the driver.

If the driver was to be charged, is there any reason why the photos (or the video footage - which has not been published)  would be inadmissable?  This is not Perry Mason, there is no jury to be prejudiced.

If the van driver is charged or summonsed then this thread as problematic to the case. 

452

shaun_from_Africa said:

tommyedinburgh said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

tommyedinburgh said:

100% correct. 

Based on the screen shots a decent lawyer/solicitor will have the van owner having no case to answer within 10 mins in any case. 

Do you mean the screenshots that don't show anything that could possibly identity the driver, the vehicle or the person (me) who did the filming?

Of course. 

In which case, why would a couple of photographs of a van in which the registration plate can't been seen and the driver can't be seen have any effect on a possible prosecution?

452 said:

Thing is you have started a thread and posted the pictures online. That is enough for the police to lose interest and bin it. 

I do wish you would make your mind up:

452 said:

Yes those ones, unless you're saying the footage used in court has a different van and is on a different road. You put it out in the public domain, it probably doesn't matter with a traffic offence but if it were say a murder there'd be an argument for charging you. 

It doesn't matter as your given them enough reasons not to proceed. 

shaun_from_Africa

452 said:
It doesn't matter as your given them enough reasons not to proceed. 

The driver can't be identified from the photographs, the vehicle can't be identified from the photographs and the registered keeper can't be identified from the photographs so I'll ask again, what reasons? (feel free to list those reasons rather than simply ignoring the question)

The police seem to have a different opinion to you:
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/fast-footage-why-police-are-turning-to-videos-to-catch-dangerous-drivers/

tommyedinburgh

shaun_from_Africa said:

452 said:
It doesn't matter as your given them enough reasons not to proceed. 

The driver can't be identified from the photographs, the vehicle can't be identified from the photographs and the registered keeper can't be identified from the photographs so I'll ask again, what reasons? (feel free to list those reasons rather than simply ignoring the question)

The police seem to have a different opinion to you:
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/fast-footage-why-police-are-turning-to-videos-to-catch-dangerous-drivers/

Maybe you are just the type of person they need to supply the videos? 

452

shaun_from_Africa said:

452 said:
It doesn't matter as your given them enough reasons not to proceed. 

The driver can't be identified from the photographs, the vehicle can't be identified from the photographs and the registered keeper can't be identified from the photographs so I'll ask again, what reasons? (feel free to list those reasons rather than simply ignoring the question)

The police seem to have a different opinion to you:
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/fast-footage-why-police-are-turning-to-videos-to-catch-dangerous-drivers/

Does that link mention starting to discuss a potential court case on the Internet?

If so I'll have a look. 

shaun_from_Africa

Discussing a potential court case has no impact whatsover on a case provided that the case being discussed doesn't name anyone or give any information that could point to the people concerned.
The pictures I posted have no information that could identify the driver or the vehicle.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3205850/Lorry-driver-sentenced-caught-camera-going-WRONG-WAY-Britain-s-dangerous-roundabout.html
Filmed on a dashcam with the full video posted online yet the driver was successfully prosecuted.

Still no answer to my question I see, not that I'm in the least bit surprised. You are simply a wannabe  policeman who pretends to know and understand the law, something that in reality doesn't appear to be the case.