But there have been numerous cases where claims were 100% proved with camera evidence but judges said were inadmissible in court.
I know of a number of cases where helmet camera film from cyclists has been used in magistrates' courts, but I don't know of any instances where it has been deemed inadmissable. Do you know the cases? I'm genuinely interested.
Here is one of the more recent cases that I am aware of (from earlier this month):
I was hit by a car back in February, the driver was in court today, charged with driving without due care and attention.
The driver was found guilty, given 3 penalty points onto his licence, fine and court costs totalling £465.
I was surprised that the driver did not plead guilty originally, considering the video evidence. The defence tried to imply that I had hit out at the car, causing me to fall, and the driver claimed that no contact was made.
I think the defence was trying to imply that I go around looking for trouble since I have a helmet camera, but the magistrates would not allow them to question me about my other videos.
I don't think anything would have happened without the video evidence - I had 2 witness details, but neither attended court, so it was his word against mine. I don't think the driver would have been found guilty without the camera footage.
I have included additional footage after the collision, to prove that I did not chase after the car shouting "c*nt c*nt f*cking c*nt"...
I know of a number of cases where helmet camera film from cyclists has been used in magistrates' courts, but I don't know of any instances where it has been deemed inadmissable. Do you know the cases? I'm genuinely interested.
Here is one of the more recent cases that I am aware of (from earlier this month):
Hit by a car - Result - YouTube