Aggressive driver tries to ram cyclist in shocking footage...but "insufficient evidence" for police action

On consultation with my wife, a solicitor specialising in, you guessed it, data protection, I have discovered that it's not so clear cut.

What the form is stating explicitly has yet to be tested in court; in particular using personal data for a purpose it was not collected for. So, submitting personal data for the purposes of law enforcement does not neccessarily make one a data controller.

Both Lancashire and Essex police websites use the same text; it's likely that many others do as well. They really shouldn't be, as the UK GDPR and the 2018 DPA are apparently much more nuanced than the statements of fact laid out in the text being discussed.

Her feeling was that, as well as being very close to wrong, the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage, as it may be inferred from the text that:

1 - you could potentially be sued by someone shown in the footage as you were'nt fulfilling all the requirements of a data controller

or

2 - that the footage my somehow become unadmissable as evidence.

This doesn't clear anything up I'm afraid but it's much shorter than the answer I got from my brief!

the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage

Of course! That's Lancashire Constabulary's intention. As a new visitor to the site, you can't be expected to know that I have been more than diligent in informing an unwilling audience on here (biker_phil excepted) just how bent LC traffic is (I have been fortunate enough to avoid any other LC departments, so far, apart from the equally bent Professional Standards), even though they're no doubt sick of hearing it. Hard luck! If Lancashire gets away with it, they'll all be trying it on even more and Essex appears to have joined them- anyone seen any cars with 'I am filming you' signs? Even I was surprised at today's transparent dodge- I will be carrying on without any signs, because I have the advantage of a couple of years worth of 'goods' on LC, and I'm ready to take them on in court- guess what they did about Robinson's of Bilsborrow 4-axle tipper lorry MV18 UJT hammering through a red light?- no prizes:

If someone gives me a link to the text on the submission portal I'll mail them (and attempt) to get it corrected

Such confidence- I can see you don't live in Lancashire! All you have to do to see it is go to:

https://unitedkingdom1cpp-portal.digital-policing.co.uk/lancashire/appeal/public-dashcam-submission

now that it's working again, click 'Respond to this appeal', and 'I'm not a robot', and look at the bottom of the page- then look at what your own local force is writing!

Perhaps pass on the link to the Lancashire Constabulary?

Pretty much everything that comes from Lancashire Constabulary TacOps (the dramatic name for people driving round in BMWs) is crap except their own driving. I haven't yet caught an of them close passing, red light crossing etc. This new condition that they may use to prosecute me will be crap as well, and it comes with the approval of Sgt 2459 Lavin- the man who threatened to prosecute me for being a cyclist in the way of a motorist who was then forced to cross the double white lines in a dangerous position on Wyre Bridge, Garstang. I urged him to do so, but he then disappeared for a couple of years and I heard nothing more. You should all watch out for your local forces trying this trick to disallow video evidence against motorists.

I may get my day in court now! However, I will be citing a letter dated today from Sgt. Lavin informing me that no action was taken over 6 serious red light crossing offences of Summer 2021 because they were too busy. Including this one

For the observant, there's a special bonus additional red light offence visible, in addition to caravan towing Audi Q5 T90 JDT

Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans? To be fair to him, he always replies if you contact him. List all your complaints with plod. I'm not saying he will do anything but it's worth a letter.

Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans?

My man is Ben Wallace- North Preston and Wyre. You can safely assume I've done the lot! It's now compilations of all the indisputable offences LC have ignored, another letter to Ben Wallace- then YouTube and Bad Cops- The Preston Connection

No it categorically does not...this will be them overreacting to those video doorbell things which was all about invasion of privacy, there is no expectation of privacy in law in a public space.

And what does it mean for those police appeals for dash cam footage that no doubt Lancashire also issue? I hope Greg files a complaint with the police commissioner. I also wish Road CC would do something more productive than publishing incident number 7,000 - it's getting nowhere fast otherwise. 

I knew you were not exaggerating that Lancs Plod has been very anti-Road enforcement, but either someone somewhere has loopholed to get someone off recently, especially with the two recent Met Police things, or they genuinely are just Asshats. 

Any other website will state if you are a business, you need GDPR but peronal dash / bikes cams you don't. Which is why you see some lorries mentioning cameras and cars don't. However just order a Passpixi and say you were wearing it. 

I suspect we are the only minority group not covered by specific hate crime legislation.

An apparent lack of professional curiosity - odds are that Mr Driver is mixed-up in something. 

Bottles of wine to Downing Street. Or supplying something stronger for one of Gove's parties?

With this and lack of evidence on a video of someone "in control of a movong vehicle" with a coffee cup in one hand and a mobile in another, it does seem the that the Met / CPS have decided phone use cannot be proven and are ignoring anything else that can be used to charge drivers with. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

With this and lack of evidence on a video of someone "in control of a movong vehicle" with a coffee cup in one hand and a mobile in another, it does seem the that the Met have decided phone use cannot be proven and are ignoring anything else that can be used to charge drivers with. 

some years ago I remember the outcry around someone who was done (successfully/routinely) for eating a KitKat at a traffic light.

It can be done, there just needs to be the will from teh traffic team.

This was a facking doozey. The Met hasn't exactly crowned itself in glory here.......