Advocacy & Safety - Curious if anyone has tried to submit a reckless driving video to police ....?

As with many of you, I've seen some pretty ridiculous driving - some of it just plain stupid, and some of it just plain deadly. I've often thought "I wish I had video of that" as these incidents pass before my eyes. I've started to see a number of cyclists with the head mount cameras - and was curious if I recorded reckless driving, if the police would even care or act on the evidence?

For instance, the other day, I was on a long straightaway on a back road. The road was fairly narrow. Another cyclist was approaching from the opposite direction. There was only one vehicle, a SUV, and they were coming from behind the other cyclist. They never slowed down, swung out entirely in MY lane, and basically ran me off the road. I had to slam my brakes (going 22mph), and then veer off the road, to avoid a head-on collision. :mad:

Anyway, suppose I had video of this incident, and plate/identifying info was clear, and I brought it to the Police. Would they do anything? If so, I would be very interested in getting rigged up with a video camera.

I think they would do something about it. Unfortunately, because PA doesn't have license plates on the front, I would have a real problem testing my theory

I think they would do something about it. Unfortunately, because PA doesn't have license plates on the front, I would have a real problem testing my theory

I have the same issue here (no front license plate). However, I ride this road all the time, and the longest light in town is at the end of the road. There is a good chance I could have caught up with the SUV if I had turned around and raced after him/her. Of course, I'd be much more likely to do so if I was wearing a video camera and I knew the Police would act.

I have a belief most police departments couldn't CARE LESS about bicyclists' complaints about 'reckless drivers' and would fail to act in any way.

the default response many bicyclists get upon calling 911 about a road rage or reckless driving incident is 'if the officer doesn't witness the event, there's no recourse."

I'd avoid any notions about becoming a traffic enforcer with a video camera, and go about enjoying your rides.

I have a belief most police departments couldn't CARE LESS about bicyclists' complaints about 'reckless drivers' and would fail to act in any way.

the default response many bicyclists get upon calling 911 about a road rage or reckless driving incident is 'if the officer doesn't witness the event, there's no recourse."

I'd avoid any notions about becoming a traffic enforcer with a video camera, and go about enjoying your rides.

I generally agree with your assessment ... that's been my opinion as well. But with video as a witness - can they really ignore the proof? Are they not legally obligated to act on it?

One reason why many drivers do this kind of #$@% is because they know there is little chance of any repercussions. If I could hold some people accountable, I'd like to make a change in that behavior - in my own small way.

I think they would do something about it. Unfortunately, because PA doesn't have license plates on the front, I would have a real problem testing my theory

In my last incident, my front mounted bike cam got a clear shot of the motorist's rear plate, vehicle model emblems, and window sticker, all at a 40 mph speed differential. I learned quickly that not all vehicles in our state, though it's required, have a front license plate, necessitating a front low mounted cam.

Hopefully I won't have to as there are laws against self incrimination, right? I don't want any video of me riding through stop signs and red lights, making illegal turns, going the wrong way on one-way streets...

Seriously though, +1 on Bekologist. Vigilantism often comes to a bad end. You may want to keep the camera going in case you are involved in accident or are a victim of battery, or otherwise injured, where it may prove useful in your defense or gaining compensation for your injuries or losses.

Locally, due to our area's disproportionately high motor vehicle/bicycle/ped collision rates, and the state's funding level being tied to their progress in lowering it, our local law enforcement agencies have been forced to take aggressive/reckless driving reports very seriously.

A question, since pretty soon I'll be rigging my bike for video -- in a situation like the one in the OP, where you have a vehicle that almost takes you out, forcing you to take evasive action but there is no contact -- would that be a 911 call, or would that be best handled through a non-emergency number?

But with video as a witness - can they really ignore the proof?Yes they can.

Many departments have policies that require that they ignore it -- if a minor moving violation was not personally witnessed by an officer, they can not ticket for it. (More serious things they'll actually investigate -- but if it's just a standard moving violation, no.)


Are they not legally obligated to act on it?Obligated by whom? And what's the recourse if they don't?

You might find a law (or policy -- doesn't have the strength of a law, but it's pretty good) that requires them to take a report, but I doubt you'll find them obligated to much more than that.

a recent thread here proves that you can successfully bring charges yourself if you have witnesses. I would guess that video would work in lieu of witnesses.

Seems to me that calling the cops and/or using the legal system is the opposite of vigilantism.

It's been eight months since I submitted this video to Presque Isle park rangers, and I still havent received a formal response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-UN_fRpQcI

I doubt that you would get much help from authorities until after a cyclist dies a slow agonizing death that drain the cyclist's entire family of their complete financial reserves, and causes a suicide of one parent and a sibling.

By the way the "setup" for the question from the OP - does not confirm whether the "driver" of the vehicle is accurately identified. And remember, for anyone who cares - absolute ID of a "driver" is necessary if reporting these type of assault/abuse......

a recent thread here proves that you can successfully bring charges yourself if you have witnesses. I would guess that video would work in lieu of witnesses.

What thread? Was there actual contact, or just reckless driving?


Seems to me that calling the cops and/or using the legal system is the opposite of vigilantism.

Exactly.

I have not tried it, but suspect it would depend on the jurisdiction and motivation of the officers.

A non-video example. I had a situation in Fort Collins, CO where I was in left turn lane and a car came right at me - just as they passed I heard them laughing as if they thought it was funny to play chicken with the cyclist.

I was frustrated enough that I cycled over to the police station and asked to file a report. I reported their license and the officer indicated he would investigate. He called later that evening to let me know he talked with them and they recalled the incident but that they had not seen me and denied the laughing part. The officer told me it would essentially be my word against theirs and probably not strong enough to pursue.

I dropped it. However, I appreciated the officer's follow through both for investigating and reporting back. I think even with a video, I would have a burden of proof and need to be prepared to put my effort in to follow issue through. I wouldn't expect the officers to just go ticket based on just a video - but instead facilitate place where I could state my case.

I also think I was fortunate in Fort Collins jurisdiction and even what I had might not apply elsewhere.

the thing is, I have seen a lot of criminal behavior on the part of motorists, and yet when I talk to cops, they always say that they get more complaints about cyclists than they do about motorists. I think we should change that. They really don't like to get complaints.

yet when I talk to cops, they always say that they get more complaints about cyclists than they do about motorists.

Of course they do ... there are a he** of a lot more motorists than cyclists.

I have not tried it, but suspect it would depend on the jurisdiction and motivation of the officers.

A non-video example. I had a situation in Fort Collins, CO where I was in left turn lane and a car came right at me - just as they passed I heard them laughing as if they thought it was funny to play chicken with the cyclist.

I was frustrated enough that I cycled over to the police station and asked to file a report. I reported their license and the officer indicated he would investigate. He called later that evening to let me know he talked with them and they recalled the incident but that they had not seen me and denied the laughing part. The officer told me it would essentially be my word against theirs and probably not strong enough to pursue.

I dropped it. However, I appreciated the officer's follow through both for investigating and reporting back. I think even with a video, I would have a burden of proof and need to be prepared to put my effort in to follow issue through. I wouldn't expect the officers to just go ticket based on just a video - but instead facilitate place where I could state my case.

I also think I was fortunate in Fort Collins jurisdiction and even what I had might not apply elsewhere.CO State Police have an online report system for cyclist to use. I would recommend you also submit the online report that will become a permanent record. Some have reported that once the State Troopers get a couple of reports on the same plate the send a letter and then esculate from there.

I have not tried it, but suspect it would depend on the jurisdiction and motivation of the officers.

A non-video example. I had a situation in Fort Collins, CO where I was in left turn lane and a car came right at me - just as they passed I heard them laughing as if they thought it was funny to play chicken with the cyclist.

I was frustrated enough that I cycled over to the police station and asked to file a report. I reported their license and the officer indicated he would investigate. He called later that evening to let me know he talked with them and they recalled the incident but that they had not seen me and denied the laughing part. The officer told me it would essentially be my word against theirs and probably not strong enough to pursue.

I dropped it. However, I appreciated the officer's follow through both for investigating and reporting back. I think even with a video, I would have a burden of proof and need to be prepared to put my effort in to follow issue through. I wouldn't expect the officers to just go ticket based on just a video - but instead facilitate place where I could state my case.

I also think I was fortunate in Fort Collins jurisdiction and even what I had might not apply elsewhere.

Ah, but isn't this exactly what many cities/counties/states are starting to do with red light cams? They're issuing tickets just on video evidence alone.

Forgive my lack of knowledge as to citizen's rights and the law -- isn't it a citizen's prerogative whether to press charges? In other words, can't I charge someone with assault (or whatever the appropriate charge would be) if I have the evidence to support the charges? Or must the police or DA choose to accept and pursue the charges?

Forgive my lack of knowledge as to citizen's rights and the law -- isn't it a citizen's prerogative whether to press charges? In other words, can't I charge someone with assault (or whatever the appropriate charge would be) if I have the evidence to support the charges? Or must the police or DA choose to accept and pursue the charges?Depends on your state laws for criminal cases.

You get to decide if you sue someone in civil court.

Ah, but isn't this exactly what many cities/counties/states are starting to do with red light cams? They're issuing tickets just on video evidence alone.In general the red light camera tickets are civil actions -- like parking tickets -- where tickets given by police officers are infractions or the lowest level of misdemeanor.

Of course, some states may be different -- I'm certainly not familiar with all of them -- but this is generally how that works.

In Oregon, YOU have the right to issue a Citizen Initiated Violation (READ: Citizen's Arrest).

http://www.stc-law.com/images/pic-action.gif (http://www.stc-law.com/pdf/ActionPamphlet.pdf)
Citizen Initiated Violation Action Pamphlet (http://www.stc-law.com/pdf/ActionPamphlet.pdf)

You could check your state's laws on the matter.

These citations carry the full weight of an officer issued ticket, but according to the LEO I tried to get to issue one, it becomes a XXXX vs. The State of Oregon (bypassing city/county courts).

In my situation, the LEO decided to go ahead and issue the ticket to the driver himself, thus saving me the hassle of the Citizen Initiated Violation. The driver was convicted.

At the time, I didn't have a video camera (forward facing), but I do now, and am thinking about adding others (helmet, rear view, and possibly a left side view).

In general the red light camera tickets are civil actions -- like parking tickets -- where tickets given by police officers are infractions or the lowest level of misdemeanor.

Of course, some states may be different -- I'm certainly not familiar with all of them -- but this is generally how that works.

Thing is though that the ticket is still being issued based on the video camera evidence. When in the past they would have been issued by an officer law.

So if it's "good" enough for a red light runner why shouldn't it be good enough for more serious offenses?

Forgive my lack of knowledge as to citizen's rights and the law -- isn't it a citizen's prerogative whether to press charges? In other words, can't I charge someone with assault (or whatever the appropriate charge would be) if I have the evidence to support the charges? Or must the police or DA choose to accept and pursue the charges?

If criminal charges got to be issued by private citizens, legal chaos would erupt.

Private citizens have no authority to issue criminal charges. criminal accusations, yes.

as to videotaping 'close passes' and 'aggressive passing' and 'violations of 3 foot laws', a bicyclist is going to be putting a lot of energy into non-events in the eyes of the law.

My impression is that only in the most egregious of harassment or endangerment scenarios is a bicyclists video going to garner anything other than suggestions from the police they've got more important things to be dealing with.

like the video of the driver coming at Degnaw posted above. 8 months and no word. That type of complaint is going to simply waste a bicyclists time and energy, unfortunately.

Video taping close passes, aggressive driving hasn't been a waste of time for me, it has given me the info need to report/document problem motorists to local law enforcement, rather than just my stewing about the incident.

Again, due to our area's disproportionately high motor vehicle/bicyclist/ped collision rate, our local law enforcement takes aggressive/dangerous driving reports very seriously, especially when a considerable amount of their annual funding is tied to how well they are able to reduce the local collision rate.

Thing is though that the ticket is still being issued based on the video camera evidence. When in the past they would have been issued by an officer law.You're asking the wrong guy. I'm just telling you what the difference is, not explaining why or arguing that the system is "correct".

Parking tickets are generally given by meter maids -- they're not sworn police officers. They don't have the authority to give moving violation tickets, but they can give civil parking tickets. The fine is assessed to the registered owner of the vehicle rather than the person who actually parked it. Red light cameras work more like meter maids than police officers. The rules are radically different.


So if it's "good" enough for a red light runner why shouldn't it be good enough for more serious offenses?The cynical but probably correct answer is that there might be money to be made in red light cameras. Not so much in sending out bills to those who are caught driving poorly by random citizens with their video cameras.

Also note that the police department rarely has anything whatsoever to do with the red light cameras beyond being caught an awful lot running said red lights (http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/APD_officers_caught_running_red_lights).

If criminal charges got to be issued by private citizens, legal chaos would erupt.

Private citizens have no authority to issue criminal charges. criminal accusations, yes.

as to videotaping 'close passes' and 'aggressive passing' and 'violations of 3 foot laws', a bicyclist is going to be putting a lot of energy into non-events in the eyes of the law.

My impression is that only in the most egregious of harassment or endangerment scenarios is a bicyclists video going to garner anything other than suggestions from the police they've got more important things to be dealing with.

like the video of the driver coming at Degnaw posted above. 8 months and no word. That type of complaint is going to simply waste a bicyclists time and energy, unfortunately.

So says the great, wise and all knowing Bek.

So says the great, wise and all knowing Bek.

thank you. if you're trying to be insulting, you need to take it down a notch, and take a look at the forum guidelines.

I do understand some basics about legal process.

a lot of the things considered 'reckless driving' by bicyclists won't get even a whit of attention down at the station.

the action has to be quite egregious for a DA to consider charges.

one of the posters reports frequent reports filed with the police.

I wonder how much success dynodonn has actually had from the frequent dispatches of close passes to the local police.

It's been eight months since I submitted this video to Presque Isle park rangers, and I still havent received a formal response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-UN_fRpQcI
What do you want them to do?
Acknowledge that an unknown driver of a red vehicle with unknown plates was in incorrect lane (for unknown, but potentially legitimate reasons) and moved back over to their lane in time to avoid you?

As for my garnering success in getting any tickets issued to the motorists that I reported, that would be none. As for my getting the same motorists documented, that would be 100 percent, but that's all I wanted to do in the first place.

What do you want them to do?
Acknowledge that an unknown driver of a red vehicle with unknown plates was in incorrect lane (for unknown, but potentially legitimate reasons) and moved back over to their lane in time to avoid you?

Actually, degnaw was able to get the license number with a very good head turn of the camera, the license number is the YouTube title.

I will likely stop by the Police Dept. one of these days, and straight out ask them what type of incidents, and what type of proof, may warrant their attention. They have a fair amount of resources, and the town has made recent efforts to reduce pedestrian (and cycling) incidents.

I simply want to know, for the future, what situations they will take seriously - what is the threshold. And, as many have discussed, I'm sure the threshold is dramatically different based on your region, biases, and resources.

In general the red light camera tickets are civil actions -- like parking tickets -- where tickets given by police officers are infractions or the lowest level of misdemeanor.

Of course, some states may be different -- I'm certainly not familiar with all of them -- but this is generally how that works.Traffic infractions in CA and CO are criminal offenses. That includes red light camera infractions in CA. For those, the drivers face must be identifiable in the picture or the ticket gets tossed. Unless of course the heavy handed camera cop gets the owner of the car to rat out who was driving at the time.

Traffic infractions in CA and CO are criminal offenses.Texas too, and probably quite a few other states. (Some states have a level of offense called an "infraction" that's not quite criminal.)


That includes red light camera infractions in CA.... now, that doesn't include Texas.


For those, the drivers face must be identifiable in the picture or the ticket gets tossed.Yes, that appears to be the case in California, Colorado and Arizona.

However, "In most jurisdictions the liability for red light violations is a civil offense, rather than a criminal citation, issued upon the vehicle owner—similar to a parking ticket" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera#United_States).


Unless of course the heavy handed camera cop gets the owner of the car to rat out who was driving at the time.Same source as above, "In many California police departments, when a positive identification cannot be made the registered owner of the vehicle will be mailed a notice of traffic violation instead of a real ticket. Also known as "snitch tickets," these notices are used to request identifying information about the driver of the vehicle during the alleged violation. Because these notices have not been filed at court, they carry no legal weight and the registered owner is under no obligation to respond."

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that a police officer had told somebody that they had to do something when they really did not.

Not that any of this has any bearing on submitting a reckless driving video to the police ...

Yeah - and as usual my comments about whether a "driver" is identified in any submitted video is ignored..... just like complaints from cyclists.... hmmm ...

Yeah - and as usual my comments about whether a "driver" is identified in any submitted video is ignored..... just like complaints from cyclists.... hmmm ...

Obviously they're not, the best case scenario is a low quality shot of their face.

Obviously they're not, the best case scenario is a low quality shot of their face.

This is not entirely accurate. There have been a number of times where I've caught up to reckless drivers (i.e. traffic light) and would be able to get a clear shot of their face. I can think of many other examples too, such as people who have intentionally pulled out right in front of me (with their eyes locked on me) and forced me to skid out to a stop. Or how about the officer who right hooked me? Or is he going to say someone else was driving his car too? Or the duo that tried to intentionally push me off the road going 25mph - I'm pretty sure I would have got clear video of the pusher's face considering it was about a foot from my left shoulder!

Vigilantism often comes to a bad end. You may want to keep the camera going in case you are involved in accident or are a victim of battery, or otherwise injured, where it may prove useful in your defense or gaining compensation for your injuries or losses.

Vigilantism is largely inappropriate here. Typically a vigilante is someone who tries to punish people outside of the law but it appears to be that cyclists -- or whoever -- are riding with cameras to work with the law.


As for my garnering success in getting any tickets issued to the motorists that I reported, that would be none. As for my getting the same motorists documented, that would be 100 percent, but that's all I wanted to do in the first place.

Documentation is important, IMO. And this applies to more than people inside cars (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BikeWashingtonDC/message/14819).

Locally, people have used video as a tool to report issues with streets, facilities, and so on. Overall, it can be a useful tool and sometimes contribute to a powerful argument.


It's been eight months since I submitted this video to Presque Isle park rangers, and I still havent received a formal response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-UN_fRpQcI


What do you want them to do?
Acknowledge that an unknown driver of a red vehicle with unknown plates was in incorrect lane (for unknown, but potentially legitimate reasons) and moved back over to their lane in time to avoid you?

It would be nice to get a response or at least someone just flat out telling you that this is waaaaaaaaaaay down the priority list since there are no possible charges.

Documentation is important, IMO. And this applies to more than people inside cars (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BikeWashingtonDC/message/14819).

Locally, people have used video as a tool to report issues with streets, facilities, and so on. Overall, it can be a useful tool and sometimes contribute to a powerful argument.



I had a similar incident some time back, no spitting though, just my panniers got ransacked with the woman motorist looking for my personal ID, and the article you posted is why I did not physically try to stop her, plus I knew my ID was not in the panniers anyway.

At this point I just have a forward facing handlebar mount unit, but the lack of PA forward plates somewhat negates using a rear for ID of plates. I have been making a score list since I commute the same stretch of road for considerable amounts of days and times. So far the cops have been partnering along the points I requested although it took a couple weeks to get their schedule rolled around. Now they wave and smile when I roll past the speed traps. Even if the extent of the police action was speeding tickets and an occasional personal greeting of the offender with a question it would still send a message. Tort and charges would be perhaps vengeful even if it would be justified to law. At least 2/3 of the near miss-ers that I have been able to talk to have not repeat offended. Even my little vivitar DVR 480 is mostly effective at scoring license plates. I wouldn't spend much more than $20 on a camera for it, but it works and its a good help for the memory.

At this point I just have a forward facing handlebar mount unit, but the lack of PA forward plates somewhat negates using a rear for ID of plates. I have been making a score list since I commute the same stretch of road for considerable amounts of days and times. So far the cops have been partnering along the points I requested although it took a couple weeks to get their schedule rolled around. Now they wave and smile when I roll past the speed traps. Even if the extent of the police action was speeding tickets and an occasional personal greeting of the offender with a question it would still send a message. Tort and charges would be perhaps vengeful even if it would be justified to law. At least 2/3 of the near miss-ers that I have been able to talk to have not repeat offended. Even my little vivitar DVR 480 is mostly effective at scoring license plates. I wouldn't spend much more than $20 on a camera for it, but it works and its a good help for the memory.


the police are running speed traps as a result of your video evidence, and you've spoken to at least 3 close passers that no longer close pass bicyclists?

I'm amazed police are watching bicyclists' videos of close passes, and doing something about it.

The police so far have not needed to see the video witness to accept citizen complaint/input. The local departments of the zones I go through have been fairly cooperative with constructive notes(like worst zones and times of day). They have told me prior to such input the success of trapping had been hit and miss at best. That to me sounds like a step in the positive.

Vigilantism is the wrong word, but my impression:

some, perhaps many riders that choose to outfit their bikes to record motorists traffic transgressions have an inflated sense of their ability to orchestrate improved compliance to traffic law and safe passing standards by motorists.

Those beliefs are picayune.

Camera evidence may be invaluable in providing a record of the event when a serious road rage incident erupts.

I see an undercurrent of overzealous frustrated do-goodism over immutable elements while riding in traffic like close passers.

There's going to have to be a sea change in the judicial process before police departments start watching citizen videos of other road users, and begin chasing after motorists passing closer than 4 feet when there HASN'T been a collision.

Recording every commute and picking out bad driving, then 'informing' the authorities smacks of quixotic visions of being a self-appointed legal observer.

Like people driving around calling 911 everytime someone passes them in the fast lane going over the legal limit, or calling 911 to report every dog walker with their dog off their leashes.

Its a nice fantasy, but there's far better things to be doing after your rides than reviewing every purported close pass to then report to the authorities.

Vigilantism is the wrong word, but my impression:

some, perhaps many riders that choose to outfit their bikes to record motorists traffic transgressions have an inflated sense of their ability to orchestrate improved compliance to traffic law and safe passing standards by motorists.

Those beliefs are picayune.

Camera evidence may be invaluable in providing a record of the event when a serious road rage incident erupts.

I see an undercurrent of overzealous frustrated do-goodism over immutable elements while riding in traffic like close passers.

There's going to have to be a sea change in the judicial process before police departments start watching citizen videos of other road users, and begin chasing after motorists passing closer than 4 feet when there HASN'T been a collision.

Recording every commute and picking out bad driving, then 'informing' the authorities smacks of quixotic visions of being a self-appointed legal observer.

Like people driving around calling 911 everytime someone passes them in the fast lane going over the legal limit, or calling 911 to report every dog walker with their dog off their leashes.

Its a nice fantasy, but there's far better things to be doing after your rides than reviewing every purported close pass to then report to the authorities.

You are trying to paint everyone with the same broad brush, as if this is some sort of thread on crime-watch cyclists. I clearly spelled out that I simply want to know what level of reckless driving (videoed) would be required to get the police to act. Does there need to be contact? What would need to be in the video (plate, ID, etc)? Has anyone been successful with submitting a video of such an incident? (so far, it appears the answer is "No") BTW, I would never expect an officer to even consider pursuing a close passer, except in the most egregious situations (contact) or where they witnessed it.

......Does there need to be contact? What would need to be in the video (plate, ID, etc)? Has anyone been successful with submitting a video of such an incident? (so far, it appears the answer is "No") BTW, I would never expect an officer to even consider pursuing a close passer, except in the most egregious situations (contact) or where they witnessed it.

Personally, I haven't yet submitted a video to local law enforcement or even mentioned to them that I had one available to submit. In the event of a collision with a hit and run or if the incident devolves into a "I said, they said", then submitting a video on my part would be in order.

Just yesterday, I recorded our local fire chief pulling out in front of me in a fire department vehicle, he realized his judgement error, and I was able to make an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting him.

After my experiences of extremely close passes, this incident wasn't in the ball park in comparison, with my pedaling on and the video clip will end up getting an honorable mention for chronological purposes and that is be as far as I will take it.

NHTSA List of Aggressive Driving Programs by state: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressivedrivinghtml/aggressive_index.htm

You are trying to paint everyone with the same broad brush, as if this is some sort of thread on crime-watch cyclists. I clearly spelled out that I simply want to know what level of reckless driving (videoed) would be required to get the police to act. Does there need to be contact? What would need to be in the video (plate, ID, etc)? Has anyone been successful with submitting a video of such an incident? (so far, it appears the answer is "No") BTW, I would never expect an officer to even consider pursuing a close passer, except in the most egregious situations (contact) or where they witnessed it.

After reading the replies, it sounds like there has been one successful response to evidence supplied to the cops, with the rest of the evidence being ignored. I wouldn't expect the cops to do anything about evidence like this until it's profitable for them to do so, as in their ability to confiscate property in the failed war on drugs. Until then, I think my best approach would be to find some way to make drivers think their actions are being recorded like at an intersection with a red light camera.

Where I live, any person can report a dangerous driver to the police provided they have some way to identify the vehicle (i.e., license plates) and charges will be filed. The case then goes to court and the complainant would have to testify which becomes a case of one person's word against another's. I am unaware of any legislation regarding the admissability of video evidence provided by the complainant; however, video evidence presented by the Crown (the state) such as red light cameras are often successfully challenged by the defendent.

.....I think my best approach would be to find some way to make drivers think their actions are being recorded like at an intersection with a red light camera.

Never underestimate the tenacity of a motorist to find a way to circumvent your recording efforts if they are forewarned. Stealth is my preferred method, and to keep the situation as candid as possible.