Mike a TucsonVelo reader sent a link to this video he shot on a recent ride. I forgot to ask what camera he used. Hopefully he’ll let us know in the comment section.
I spoke with a few Tucson Police Department bike patrol officers and they said TPD likely would not pursue a case against the driver even with video evidence.
According to one of the officers, they would not be able to determine who was driving and wouldn’t be able to issue a citation.
I also posted last week about a driver who nearly hit riders during the Shootout. Dawn Barkman, who is the Public Information Officer for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, suggested the best course of action is to call 911 immediately so that an officer can try to locate the vehicle and driver eliminating the question of who was driving. Here is what she said:
Basically, when (or if) this types of incident occurs, the victim or reportee calls in the complaint to 911. Whatever law enforcement becomes involved will generate a call number which an officer (or deputy) then takes action upon. He/She will begin searching for the suspect or suspect vehicle. If enough information is received, and based upon the call load and the seriousness of the call, the deputy continues to work the call or refers to detectives. I know this sounds vague, but every call is handled on a case by case basis. What we would like to see without ANYONE placing themselves in danger is a good description of the vehicle, a plate number (if at all possible), and possible suspect information. This all helps law enforcement in furthering an investigation.
That policy is something members of the TPBBAC are concerned about. Here is what I wrote in a previous post:
The last piece of information that struck the BAC was the number of hit and runs that are not investigated. Post said that obviously they couldn’t fault the officers for not following up if there isn’t a license plate number or some other identifying piece of information.
But he said the officers aren’t investigating even if there are witnesses and someone got a plate number.
“What we have learned is, unless it is a fatality or it was something really high profile, they are not going to go on a manhunt. They’re just not going to do it,” Post said.
He also said they have been told by officers and lawyers around Tucson, that unless the cyclist can identify the driver they won’t go after the driver. This is what Erik Ryberg was told when one of his clients was hit in the back with a baseball bat.
“Does that mean they (should) get off scott free? No. No,” Post said. “You’ve got the license plate, you know who owns the vehicle. You go out, you knock on the door, you talk to the guy and say, ‘hey, your automobile was seen in a hit and run we see some marks on the automobile.’ You do your investigation.”
“Very often somebody will say, ‘Ohh I didn’t know, or I felt something,’” Post said. Then you start getting confessions out of people and you can start moving forward.”
I plan on pursuing a more in-depth piece about why the majority of the time officers write tickets for stop-sign violations rather than wrong-way riding or three-foot violations.
If video evidence is not enough to issue a citation, why are there red light and speeding cameras all over Tucson?
If video evidence is not enough to issue a citation, why are there red light and speeding cameras all over Tucson?
“If video evidence is not enough to issue a citation, why are there red light and speeding cameras all over Tucson?” (Frank says: April 11, 2010 at 8:41 AM)
Well, Frank, first, there are not red light and speeding (sic) cameras all over Tucson. The cameras are in select trouble spots.
Second, Frank, those cameras that are in place (or mobile) exist because many motorists do not behave themselves and cameras are a relatively inexpensive and lawful way for poor cities such as Tucson to modify their misbehavior.
Third, Frank, city and county cameras do in fact get misbehaving motorist face shots (and teenage dog nappers) and are admissible in court. Bicycle cams generally don’t and probably can’t get face shots. Hence they are not, in practice admitted. Which probably means no law enforcement action on any bicycle cam event.
Fourth, Red Star generally favors any effort that raises motorist awareness and possibly improves their behavior.
Again, as pointed out above, the realistic, albeit imperfect, resource for cyclists seem to be 911 and the TPD road rage hotline.
“If video evidence is not enough to issue a citation, why are there red light and speeding cameras all over Tucson?” (Frank says: April 11, 2010 at 8:41 AM)
Well, Frank, first, there are not red light and speeding (sic) cameras all over Tucson. The cameras are in select trouble spots.
Second, Frank, those cameras that are in place (or mobile) exist because many motorists do not behave themselves and cameras are a relatively inexpensive and lawful way for poor cities such as Tucson to modify their misbehavior.
Third, Frank, city and county cameras do in fact get misbehaving motorist face shots (and teenage dog nappers) and are admissible in court. Bicycle cams generally don’t and probably can’t get face shots. Hence they are not, in practice admitted. Which probably means no law enforcement action on any bicycle cam event.
Fourth, Red Star generally favors any effort that raises motorist awareness and possibly improves their behavior.
Again, as pointed out above, the realistic, albeit imperfect, resource for cyclists seem to be 911 and the TPD road rage hotline.
“I forgot to ask what camera he used. Hopefully he’ll let us know in the comment section.”
It’s like asking the grand piano player on the Titanic what bench he was sitting on at the time…
“I forgot to ask what camera he used. Hopefully he’ll let us know in the comment section.”
It’s like asking the grand piano player on the Titanic what bench he was sitting on at the time…
The camera is a Contour HD1080p… running in a 1280×720 format… the movie that was uploaded was a pretty compressed version of what the camera produced and it will do face shots pretty nicely if we have the opportunity. It sounds like in one of the “shootout” situations reported on TucsonVelo earlier, that a face shot would have been pretty easy to get, but in this case unless I chased this fool down, it wouldn’t have been.
The camera is a Contour HD1080p… running in a 1280×720 format… the movie that was uploaded was a pretty compressed version of what the camera produced and it will do face shots pretty nicely if we have the opportunity. It sounds like in one of the “shootout” situations reported on TucsonVelo earlier, that a face shot would have been pretty easy to get, but in this case unless I chased this fool down, it wouldn’t have been.
The best thing our cams can do is raise the awareness for right now. Until a DL plate is sufficient enough they are just protecting motorist’s behavior. Considering there is no way I am going to see the motorists face accurately.
Some of my cams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7L23PeCR0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7c82MxRg3Y
The best thing our cams can do is raise the awareness for right now. Until a DL plate is sufficient enough they are just protecting motorist’s behavior. Considering there is no way I am going to see the motorists face accurately.
Some of my cams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7L23PeCR0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7c82MxRg3Y
And we all know that if the car had hit him, TPD would happily use the video as evidence to cite the cyclist for failing to yield so the driver could recover for his blood-n-scratches bodywork damage.
Looks like we’re being told that a dual camera setup is in order, or at least one camera in which a rear-view mirror is in the field of view so that overtaking cars can be seen coming and going. I just picked up a new HD camera myself – I’ll experiment a little with a mirror on the mount to see if I can get decent face and plate images in the same video.
We need a “stupid driver” video page on Tucson Velo where we can collect all the specific instances of drivers committing chargeable offenses against cyclists.
And we all know that if the car had hit him, TPD would happily use the video as evidence to cite the cyclist for failing to yield so the driver could recover for his blood-n-scratches bodywork damage.
Looks like we’re being told that a dual camera setup is in order, or at least one camera in which a rear-view mirror is in the field of view so that overtaking cars can be seen coming and going. I just picked up a new HD camera myself – I’ll experiment a little with a mirror on the mount to see if I can get decent face and plate images in the same video.
We need a “stupid driver” video page on Tucson Velo where we can collect all the specific instances of drivers committing chargeable offenses against cyclists.
And while it’s true that a face shot needs to be visible to issue a traffic cam citation; when, for some reason the face shot is unintelligible, TPD will often at least contact the registered owner of the vehicle with a warning and/or to try to determine the driver’s identity. Funny how they’ll follow up like that when fine revenue is at stake but not when cyclists lives are directly threatened.
And while it’s true that a face shot needs to be visible to issue a traffic cam citation; when, for some reason the face shot is unintelligible, TPD will often at least contact the registered owner of the vehicle with a warning and/or to try to determine the driver’s identity. Funny how they’ll follow up like that when fine revenue is at stake but not when cyclists lives are directly threatened.