Helmet cam feature in the Guardian

Apologies if this has already been posted...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/feb/22/youtube-justice-road-rage-victims

I'm a bit camera-less these...dark... days. I didnt realise just how poor the low light capabilities of a go pro was untill after I'd bought it.

GRRRR

still I could dig out my old Muvi if I really wanted to.

PS, the link didnt work for me.

depressing set of comments
as usual..

Simon Castle of the Metropolitan Police Cycle Taskforce said, "...cameras are not considered as good as an independent witness...".

Eh? I'd have liked to ask him why he feels that. If anything, a camera is the best independent witness you can have.
And if they're not that good, why is his Taskforce using them?

Raw footage is not considered evidence in the court of law. Where as an independent witness statement is.

Which is why a push for court/CPS guidelines similar to the CCTV ones might be beneficial....

Do you have a source for that?

Police use video evidence at courts all the time; recorded interviews with suspects, cctv footage from street cameras, and from their own body-mounted cameras.

And what do you mean by raw footage? Isn't raw footage what's expected as opposed to anything that has been manipulated or enhanced in some way?

Video footage can not just be taken from a camera and then used in court, it must first be verified and then processed for court use. Only once footage has been verified can it be used in court as evidence.

Raw footage - original copy
Verified footage - evidence

The courts may require a Traffic Officer to describe what he see's happening in the video footage for it to be used in a case.

My source is several police officers in the met, some who deal regularly with video from patrol cars, others who deal regularly with verifying footage for use in courts.


Video can be manipulated and you can make footage show only that what you want to show. As such it is not technically as strong as an independent witness.