Video: weaving truck case prompts highway chief to consult with land department about dash-cams

 

Picture: Daily News

 

BANGKOK: -- A dash-cam video that caught a Chiang Mai truck weaving recklessly across a road has prompted the chief of highway police to discuss the admissibility of such footage for prosecution.

 

It is hoped that damning dash-cam evidence may help to change poor driving habits on Thai roads, reported Daily News.

 

The footage was actually taken by a leading Region 5 policeman in his private car but as he was not on duty in a police vehicle the admissibility of the evidence is unsure.

 

Highways chief Somchai Kaosamran said that dash-cam footage was a relatively new phenomenon in Thailand and the law has to catch up with its increasing prevalence.

 

He said there would not be much point in having it if it could not be used to nail negligent drivers.

 

The footage of the Chiang Mai truck shocked many people - not least those in the car doing the filming.

 

Many want to see such footage used for prosecutions that go beyond the provisions of the highway code.

 

Source: Daily News

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2017-04-21

 

Interesting to note that the "leading Region 5 policeman in his private car" using the dash cam fails on to keep left after overtaking manouvers for protracted periods. 

Whilst not diminishing the actions of the truck driver, if one of them end up being charged it should be both of them.

 

But that will never happen, anyway, moving on.

The truck driver needs to by taught to drive properly.

So does the policeman fast lane hogger, bad driving by both of them.

I am a leading policeman, i can do what i want, as i am better than you.

...... the admissibility of the evidence is unsure.

 

Now what? They need the evidence of the evidence?

 

The thing I noticed the most was no one uses their indicators in Thailand. What the "L " is wrong with them.

My pet peeve,  indicators .

37 minutes ago, doremifasol said:

...... the admissibility of the evidence is unsure.

 

Now what? They need the evidence of the evidence?

 

The 'evidence' would not be admissible because the speed indicator on the dashcam is not working. I didn't see too much evidence of 'reckless weaving'.

 

How is it that Dash cam footage admissibility is unsure

Bbut CCTV footage is ok? what is the difference??

 

Next it will be "Dash cams banned as they don't show Thailand in a positive manner"

All I see is a Dawdling Dash Cammer in the outside lane pissing of a Trucker,then eventually return to his correct lane,where other normal folks overtook him.[emoji233]


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

That was a waste of four minutes  . . .  

If they got just a small percentage of their 310,000 lazy ass Cops out on the roads in unmarked cars they would soon be raking in enough money to install all the equipment needed to bring an end to much of the bad driving we see on a daily basis.

 

This particular recording is pussy compared to many of the Trucks i have followed even in the last few months !

1 hour ago, dutchweller said:

How is it that Dash cam footage admissibility is unsure

Bbut CCTV footage is ok? what is the difference??

 

I can only speak to what I know.

 

Where I come from, you can have your own CCTV set up attached to your own property for your own safety and peace of mind.

 

However, if your CCTV overlooks any other property, eg a main road or next door's garden, any CCTV evidence will be void.

 

This means that if someone steals a car in front of your property but not from your property, even though you can see exactly who did it, the police would need other evidence to trap the thief because your CCTV footage would be inadmissible.

 

I believe that is the state of UK law but of course if you are able to update that I would be happy to read the latest position.

I have had a dash cam now for a few yrs and my main reason was so that if some idiot in front of me did something to cause me to have an accident I would at least have a case to present to my insurance Co.I have not had cause to use it thus so far ,but maybe they too would baulk at the idea of using this as evidence.Has anyone had any experience with this problem?.Let's face it,it's all relative to this thread.

2 hours ago, garywim said:

The thing I noticed the most was no one uses their indicators in Thailand. What the "L " is wrong with them.

My pet peeve,  indicators .

The second you put it on the person you are indicating your turn to comes racing up to block your lane change.  Test it. Never fails. 

My impression was that the articulated lorry was travelling a little too fast for safety , it is a pity the Dashcam kph was not working .  The only severe wobble I noticed was almost certainly due to the trailer fishtailing as a result of retaking the nearside lane too fast after overtaking a car .

In the UK, the policeman would be the witness giving evidence about the speed, manner of driving. The dash cam footage is simply corroboration (support) of what the witness says. In fact, UK courts accept a police officer's opinion as an expert witness about estimated speed even without corroboration, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. This is one of the few cases where evidence of opinion is admissible there.  

 

Most UK traffic patrol cars, marked and unmarked, have video recording, onboard radar, and certified speedometers which have to be checked regularly over a measured mile to make sure they have the evidence to present against offenders. Maybe one day it will happen in Thailand. 

<deleted> of course it is admissible, let the truck driver challenge its authenticity in court and see how that goes, it is no different than using cctv or phone camera footage of other types of crime

 

it is only a video not some technical equipment that might need certified and calibrated in order to use as evidence such as a breathalyser or speed detection device

 

 

I'm going to use the "stupidity" word again

19 minutes ago, biplanebluey said:

I have had a dash cam now for a few yrs and my main reason was so that if some idiot in front of me did something to cause me to have an accident I would at least have a case to present to my insurance Co.I have not had cause to use it thus so far ,but maybe they too would baulk at the idea of using this as evidence.Has anyone had any experience with this problem?.Let's face it,it's all relative to this thread.

I have cameras for this reason front and rear of my car, and already used it twice to show police and insurance the actions of the idiot motorcyclists who drove into me. No one worried about any rules of evidence or inadmissibility, but it didn't come to a court case.

My impression was that the articulated lorry was travelling a little too fast for safety , it is a pity the Dashcam kph was not working .  The only severe wobble I noticed was almost certainly due to the trailer fishtailing as a result of retaking the nearside lane too fast after overtaking a car .

Drivers can do that Fishtail easy, not good,it's their way of Flipin the Bird to inconsiderate lane joggers like the Cop with the Cam.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Normal day on the roads,nothing to indicate "weaving".

In the interests of road safety education,the authorities should look at whatever education or training is used to make Thais park with their front wheels "straight".

Perhaps this could also be used to have more relevant issues addressed and adhered to.

There are good reasons to be very wary of video evidence in court. Anyone who understands the basics of imagery in either photos or film will know full well that seeing is not believing.

As another poster points out whilst filming the “incident” the video also records a fault in the video-makers driving.
Furthermore video only records what it is pointed at.  Although unlikely it is possible that the factor causing the truck to weave was out of shot. In other videos this is often the case - they simply don’t record everything and a construct a false reality - sadly this is usually overlooked.
Film is a far more manipulative and manipulatable media than most people would give credit .
 

Hold on, how can a police man see a crime and not do anything about it?
I thought policemen were never completely off duty.

someone got it spot on, a lorry under

taking an overtaking lane hogger., and the selfish cop stayed out there.

One wonders why the the car from which the video was taken is stuck in the outside lane for most of the time? But then I read that he is a policeman.

1 hour ago, trainman34014 said:

If they got just a small percentage of their 310,000 lazy ass Cops out on the roads in unmarked cars they would soon be raking in enough money to install all the equipment needed to bring an end to much of the bad driving we see on a daily basis.

 

This particular recording is pussy compared to many of the Trucks i have followed even in the last few months !

You got that right  310,000 lazy cops who dont even know the rules themselves. This guy talking must of had nothing to do So hang on i will grab a mic and talk Nothing will happen Its just talk talk I have seen cops drive through red lights and when they do the rest of the traffic just follows

Don't go down the US way of unsure about admission. It is quite obvious, that this clip is not a product of Hollywood. 
Sue the driver (not the owner, if (s)he was not driving) and throw him into the slammer. 

Also fine all those nerds who keep on blocking the fast lane with their coffins on wheels ..... 

I kept waiting for the moment when the truck started driving unsafely. All I saw was an offduty policeman driving in the far right lane much slower than prevailing traffic and causing a road hazard. The policeman is the only one incriminated on this video.

 

The safest speed to drive is the same speed as the rest of the traffic.  If you feel the prevailing speed is faster than what is safe, then move to the left where you will be less of an obstruction. The policeman needs to go back to school for remedial training. The truck driver obviously became annoyed with him at one point and passed him on the left, but that was completely legal and hardly something worthy of posting a dash cam video about.

 

 

why should there even be deliberation over whether dashcam footage should be used as evidence or not? 

this is so clear cut. 

Sure truck drivers should use the left lane as most do but here's the problem many are in a bad state of repair because they are not built for heavy trucks. The govt does not pay the expensive damage bill caused by these left lanes. Even cars do not drive in them. Some of these damaged left lanes can cause a truck to veer offline and cause an accident and there is never warning signage to warn drivers. 

If the dash can video is clear, shows an offence being committed, time/date etc is correct & verified, also shows the number plate then let the police decide if a retrospective charge can be brought to court. Then let the court decide if the video evidence can be used to support the case.