There is no easy answer to this question. The biggest selling point is to prove what happened in the event of an accident.

Now, I have been in this field of law for 32 years and I can count on the fingers of one hand where video footage has been a complete game changer, but where there has been video footage available, it can be useful.

Strangely, it is usually video footage from other people’s dashcams which make or break cases because they can capture the whole incident, whereas a front or rear mounted camera on your motorcycle has a very limited angle. For the classic accident where some clown pulls out on top of you because they haven’t looked, cameras don’t really help that much. Those cases are virtually self-proving.

However, if you do have a camera and you are involved in an accident, and you either bring or defend a claim, your camera footage is a document which you must retain and show to the other side, even if your pre-accident riding might be a little over exuberant. As a matter of civil law, any document, and a document includes an electronic or video record, of a relevant incident must be disclosed to the other side and made available to the court. This means it goes in, warts and all. It is a well-established principle of law that even if you were riding badly before an incident, it is only your riding which had an effect on the accident which is relevant.

So, if you have hoisted a 300m wheelie outside a school but your front wheel is back down on the ground and you are trundling past a minor junction when a driver pulls out on top of you while you travel at exactly the speed limit, the wheelie is not, as a matter of law, relevant. But it is, as a matter of fact, relevant because while judges apply the law fairly, you will not have warmed the cockles of any judge’s heart by your wheelie antics.

If you are suspected of an offence, police officers do have a limited power under Section 19 of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act to seize evidence, and a recording is evidence in a vehicle or premises. I think it is likely that the courts would interpret on a motorcycle as being ‘in a vehicle’, but a GoPro fixed to your helmet is not in a vehicle however liberal the interpretation. This is not applicable in Scottish or Northern Irish law.

I have heard this debate with a number of road traffic officers, and they seem very unsure as to whether or not they can seize video footage from an onboard motorcycle camera. They will certainly ask for it and it would be a proper inference for the court to draw at any criminal trial that, whilst you had video evidence, you declined to produce it to the police.

However, this does not change the criminal burden of proof. You do not have to prove yourself innocent, the prosecution has to prove you guilty, but it would be remarkable if you had evidence which clears you that you chose not to provide it to the court.

WHO’S WRITING?
Andrew Dalton is an ex-despatch rider turned solicitor and barrister with over 25 years’ experience in the field of motorcycle law. He rides a KTM 1290 Super Adventure, a Husqvarna 701, and a Husqvarna 350. Andrew has ridden throughout the UK and Europe and is a well-recognised expert in both British and European motorcycle law.