Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

QLD Do police use dash cam footage to issue fines?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Notrossi, Oct 2, 2016.

  1. It occurs to me that although mostly angelic, sometimes my riding may not be to the standard that I would necessarily want scrutinized by the long arm.
    For example if I had inadvertently crossed double lines whilst overtaking a vehicle and said vehicle contains
    a. A dash cam
    b. An irritated occupant in possession of item a.
    It is a known regular occurance for submitted footage to result in fines and or demerit points?
    I'm not saying that I did cross double lines at any time or condone any such behavior. Purely hypothetical.
    Apologies if this topic has been discussed.....I have searched ( a little bit ) both this site and the Interweb in general to no avail.

    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. No video from the public, and in NSW not from highway cars.
    Police may tender and rely upon video of an offence to a court as part of the evidence to satisfy the proofs.

    Dash cam video poses the problem of identification, particularly with bikes.
    You can't issue an infringement to a bike for moving traffic offences, you have to issue them to riders/drivers.
    Just because you have a vehicle rego doesn't automatically incriminate the driver/rider as someone else could be in control of the vehicle.

    In certain circumstances, police can issue the registered operator with a form of demand, which requires the operator to identify the person in charge of the vehicle at a particular time and location.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Thanks for the reply Tweet........I kinda figured something along those lines considering some of the questionable riding practices frequently on display.
  4. If you went to a popular bike cafe on a popular bike road, and you were kind enough to let a couple of strangers test ride your bike,,,,,,,,,, it'd be pretty hard to identify them after the event
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. What?! How do red light cameras and speed camera's work then? The penalty notice is issued to the registered owner, and you nominate and identify another party if it wasn't you.
  6. That's not a dash cam, and approved speed measuring device cameras and ref light cameras are in a section of legislation of their own.
    You will also note that for those infringements, the registered operator also has the option to nominate the person responsible.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. But there's no problem of identification with them, the same principle applies as fixed and mobile cameras. They're just not using them as such yet because of calibration issues/costs.
  8. Not true..
    The registered operator either pays up (admitting guilt) or nominates the person in charge. If the nominated person denies the offence, opting to have the matter heard, the burden of satisfying the proofs still rests with police, and that includes identifying the driver.
    If the registered operator nominates someone and the above occurs, guess who becomes a witness for the prosecution who will get a subpoena to appear to attest same....
  9. Outraged citizen gives vid of rampaging bikey to A Current Affair who show it on TV and then gives it to Ass Commissioner Superintendent x who nods and says he will be investigating said hanus vid. Is this treated similarly. I am expecting lots of this after the usual hand wringing Tuesday after the Long Weekend carnage
  10. I should also add that the dash cams in police vehicles are not legislated like Red light and speed cameras are.
  11. Now you're just googling shite :p
    As the registered owner of a vehicle captured by an authorised police (or agent) camera committing a traffic offence, you are incriminated for that offence and issued a penalty notice. It's a formal criminal matter once the penalty notice is issued. If you elect to go to court (or do not respond, which BTW is your BEST option if you're not going to pay it) then yes in a court appearance the burden of proof applies.

    Back to the point of your statement that I initially responded, dashcam's (if they were used) do not have a problem of identification anymore than a fixed/mobile camera does - the identification issue rests with the prosecutor if the criminal matter gets that far.

    Dashcam's current issue, for police usage especially but public usage wont be too far behind IMHO, is that they're not easily/cheaply calibrated (eg. it would cost more than the fines) right now and thus pose a huge problem if used as evidence in court appearances. They'll resolve it soon, and then start using them.
  12. but videos can be tampered with?

    you cna already report people for chucking rubbish out of a car etc, but fines based on dashcam footage would be interesting.
    like Russia, everyone would have them..
    wonder if it would make people too paranoid to do stupid shit? nah, too many stupid people... p
  13. As can any evidence. The law trusts police handling, providing processes are followed.

    Interestingly, the use of body cam's on police has reduced complaints by 90+ %. It's attributed to both the police and the others parties all behaving in a calmer demeanor knowing that video is being used, therefore greatly contributing to people thinking before they act. Pretty much just like signs saying you are on CCTV.

    Parking offences are now, with growing frequency, being sourced by cameras in cars that just drive through the parking lot and use software with number plate recognition to determine if the car has stayed beyond allowed time. CCTV's starting to be used with the same software applied against their images too. Same systems police use for their mobile in-car roadside number plate recognition and sending penalty notices for registration offences, or officers to visit the home of the registered owner in license suspected offence scenario's.

    With HD and 4K resolutions now commonly available in cameras, don't be surprised how easily it is for a from-behind camera to get enough details of the driver through the rear window, teamed with a traffic or CCTV camera nearby having a frontal view to confirm. All it takes is software to locate and stitch these together, and that's very rapidly starting to be used down to local/state law enforcement these days.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. #14 TWEET, Oct 3, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2016
    No Googling here... words from my mouth ;)

    Speed cameras and red light cameras have data contained on the image that at law is acceptable as being proof of an offence. There are anti-tampering elements in that data. As mentioned before, legislation exists that permits the images captured by these cameras to satisfy the proofs.
    Another issue with dash cam video is time, date and location.
    To prosecute an offence, polic have to be able to establish when and where that offence took place.
    There is a statue of limitations that applies (varies between states) to commencing proceedings, and the date/time you see on dash cam video cannot be relied upon as it is easily set by the user.

    How do you calibrate a dash cam? What part of a dash cam would one calibrate? A registration that is clearly visible in video needs no calibration.

    When you see speed imposed on dash cam video, that speed reading is linked to the vehicle radar, which is calibrated and therefore can be tendered as evidence.

    Do you not think if it were simple enough to take a clearly visible registration and issue a TIN on that basis the state govts would be carefully reviewing all the dash cam video available and do so? It would be an easy revenue raiser.......
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. #15 robsalvv, Oct 3, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2016
    If you want it RIGHT from the QLD assistant commissioner traffic's mouth, about why dash cam footage isn't immediately accepted as evidence, head over to the Victorian parliament committee inquiries page, look up the bicycle minimum distance overtaking law inquiry and read the AC's transcript from the inquiry. The topic of video evidence was discussed.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  16. How important would it be for the police to have video evidence, considering that their expert opinion is quite often enough for a conviction?
  17. Police won't do anything with citizen cams. I Was deliberately run down twice in about 5 years - both times very clear on camera - not only was the vehicle but also the drivers clearly identified. One time I was given an event number and it was followed up as predatory driving but ultimately they dropped it as "their stated version did not accord with mine (or camera)" well derr. They are always going to make excuses. Footage spoke for itself, but they said without further independent witnesses they couldn't do anything.

    Even with witnesses, how's about that Taysh... on here - Sorry can't remember full name) that was dragged of his bike and choked for nothing in traffic and the assailant got off, and kept his licence. Whatever happened to that rider - you still here?

    So I wouldn't be too worried. Unless pulled over by a cop at the time, usually by HWP, I wouldn't worry about being prosecuted - but you may be flamed by know-it-all ignoramuses on Dashcam Owners. Oooohhhhh.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Not all police are expert witnesses.
    An expert police witness opinion is only relevant in some circumstances and only where they have specialist training in those areas.
    I have twice defeated highway patrol police and accident investigation police in the court on separate matters despite both being deemed expert witnesses relevant to those matters.

    Their expert opinion still has to correlate with available evidence and essentially make sense in order to be well regarded by the courts.
  19. So - I guess the answer is "Not yet - but may change when the government decide there's enough cash to be made from it to change the regs" ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Videos posted on social media sites have led to police investigating some 'events' or incidents and the circumstances surrounding those events or incidents. Charges have been laid as a result of those investigations and prosecutions have been achieved.

    It is my understanding that dash cam/helmet cam footage on it's own can't be used as absolute evidence of a crime - there is certainly a problem with identification of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time - but the police have ways of getting some people to readily confess to doing the crime.

    This is why some people get a bit 'touchy' about videos of their riding/driving being broadcast on social media sites. It is also why it's never a good idea to have clear images of the speedo/tacho or to clearly identify yourself on the video. There is also a potential issue with insurance claims should the insurance company come in to possession of a video of you not exactly obeying the law.
    • Informative Informative x 1