Dash Cam Speeding
Discussion
kapiteinlangzaam said:
SK425 said:
kapiteinlangzaam said:
In the days when an insurance company will try to pull your pants down and rob you of NCB at any opportinity
Why would someone choose to buy from an insurer they believed was going to act like that?kapiteinlangzaam said:
One claimants word against another (without witnesses) will always go 50/50 from a claims point of view. Don't try to argue otherwise.
A camera removes the ambiguity, if it suits me to do so.
Lack of witnesses doesn't mean 50/50. It does in a lot of circumstances, but that's based on hundreds of court rulings, rather than insurers saying "I know lets rob someone of their NCD, so that they'll leave next year and go to one of our competitors"
A dash cam will show what happens in front. It won't show who hit you from the rear, the side or anything else. It also won't necessarily make your case, as it provides a single view only, rather than a rounded view which might be required.
LoonR1 said:
Do you really believe both of those assertions?
Lack of witnesses doesn't mean 50/50. It does in a lot of circumstances, but that's based on hundreds of court rulings, rather than insurers saying "I know lets rob someone of their NCD, so that they'll leave next year and go to one of our competitors"
A dash cam will show what happens in front. It won't show who hit you from the rear, the side or anything else. It also won't necessarily make your case, as it provides a single view only, rather than a rounded view which might be required.
I bought a front and rear camera for £42 off fleabay. The same camera can be had from China for £30. It's another witness that I can call if I think it will help. It would be silly to call a hostile witness Lack of witnesses doesn't mean 50/50. It does in a lot of circumstances, but that's based on hundreds of court rulings, rather than insurers saying "I know lets rob someone of their NCD, so that they'll leave next year and go to one of our competitors"
A dash cam will show what happens in front. It won't show who hit you from the rear, the side or anything else. It also won't necessarily make your case, as it provides a single view only, rather than a rounded view which might be required.
.pingu393 said:
I bought a front and rear camera for £42 off fleabay. The same camera can be had from China for £30. It's another witness that I can call if I think it will help. It would be silly to call a hostile witness .
Are they wide angle? What about the sides? Seriously, these aren't me being flippant. If you're going to rely on them then expect some serious cross examination if the other side fancies it. You think it's you vs your insurance company and that's your problem. It's you and your insurance co vs the other driver and their insurer. .Seems to me that all these people who see their own insurer as the enemy are the ones who stand to lose the most.
C
One claimants word against another (without witnesses) will always go 50/50 from a claims point of view. Don't try to argue otherwise.
A camera removes the ambiguity, if it suits me to do so.Do you really believe both of those assertions?
Lack of witnesses doesn't mean 50/50. It does in a lot of circumstances, but that's based on hundreds of court rulings, rather than insurers saying "I know lets rob someone of their NCD, so that they'll leave next year and go to one of our competitors"
A dash cam will show what happens in front. It won't show who hit you from the rear, the side or anything else. It also won't necessarily make your case, as it provides a single view only, rather than a rounded view which might be required.Yes.
and
Yes.
I hold the opinion that insurance companies are in general not your 'friend', you can of course feel free to disagree. I have had enough dealings with them in the UK to form a pretty cynical opinion of them, that is something that will not be swayed by anything, let alone random strangers on the internet.
My current insurance policies (all outside the UK) are from two companies, both of which are far from the cheapest but in return actually offer a semblance of customer service. Not everyone (myself included when I was younger) is in a position to pay a bit more for a 'better' service, and by better I mean fair!
I stand by my assertion that in a case of two motorists both claiming its the others fault, with no other witnesses or evidence to prove one way or the other, it will end up in a 50/50 claim which plainly punishes one party.
I have a dashcam so that if I ever find myself in such a situation and its clearly not my fault, I can provide evidence to prove so and therefore protect my 'investment' of 8 years of NCB.
My dashcam is not GPS equipped and does not log speed. It records in full HD in a loop (in fantastic quality), is almost completely hidden from view, took 45 mins to install, is plumbed in to the cars electrics (so no unsightly cables), cost £50 all in, and one day might save me a decent sum of money.
It requires (and will receive) no further input from me save the time it took to install. Im not pretending to be a knight of the road or a saintly driver, because I am not. In fact on any given day if a BiB replayed camera footage recorded from my car he will observe me at above the speed limit quite a lot of the time.
I'm hesitant to spend the time writing a reply as I feel like I am being trolled Loon... and thats something I notice you doing a lot in threads (where I play no active part). People in general put up with it because you are in certain areas extremely knowledgeable - that makes it more of a shame IMO that you attempt to wind people up with some very obvious baiting at times.
I'm not going to change your opinion, so no point trying I will,however pick you up on "trolling". You are the one making wild, unfounded general accusations. You base these on one or two incidents that probably don't bear any resemblance to the full facts. It's amazing how many people,profess their innocence in a claim and continue to do so,meen when presented with incontrovertible evidence of their fault.
You won't care about that, or believe it, but please don't accuse me of trolling simply because I hold a different view to you.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
LoonR1 said:
kapiteinlangzaam said:
One claimants word against another (without witnesses) will always go 50/50 from a claims point of view. Don't try to argue otherwise.
A camera removes the ambiguity, if it suits me to do so.
Lack of witnesses doesn't mean 50/50. It does in a lot of circumstances, but that's based on hundreds of court rulings, rather than insurers saying "I know lets rob someone of their NCD, so that they'll leave next year and go to one of our competitors"
A dash cam will show what happens in front. It won't show who hit you from the rear, the side or anything else. It also won't necessarily make your case, as it provides a single view only, rather than a rounded view which might be required.
and
Yes.
I hold the opinion that insurance companies are in general not your 'friend', you can of course feel free to disagree. I have had enough dealings with them in the UK to form a pretty cynical opinion of them, that is something that will not be swayed by anything, let alone random strangers on the internet.
My current insurance policies (all outside the UK) are from two companies, both of which are far from the cheapest but in return actually offer a semblance of customer service. Not everyone (myself included when I was younger) is in a position to pay a bit more for a 'better' service, and by better I mean fair!
I stand by my assertion that in a case of two motorists both claiming its the others fault, with no other witnesses or evidence to prove one way or the other, it will end up in a 50/50 claim which plainly punishes one party.
I have a dashcam so that if I ever find myself in such a situation and its clearly not my fault, I can provide evidence to prove so and therefore protect my 'investment' of 8 years of NCB.
My dashcam is not GPS equipped and does not log speed. It records in full HD in a loop (in fantastic quality), is almost completely hidden from view, took 45 mins to install, is plumbed in to the cars electrics (so no unsightly cables), cost £50 all in, and one day might save me a decent sum of money.
It requires (and will receive) no further input from me save the time it took to install. Im not pretending to be a knight of the road or a saintly driver, because I am not. In fact on any given day if a BiB replayed camera footage recorded from my car he will observe me at above the speed limit quite a lot of the time.
I'm hesitant to spend the time writing a reply as I feel like I am being trolled Loon... and thats something I notice you doing a lot in threads (where I play no active part). People in general put up with it because you are in certain areas extremely knowledgeable - that makes it more of a shame IMO that you attempt to wind people up with some very obvious baiting at times.
Edited by kapiteinlangzaam on Tuesday 17th March 19:39
You won't care about that, or believe it, but please don't accuse me of trolling simply because I hold a different view to you.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
LoonR1 said:
but please don't accuse me of trolling simply because I hold a different view to you.
I'm not the first person to accuse you of it. Perhaps its time to ask yourself why people have that impression of you?Of course, this is just an internet forum and in the grand scheme of things it is of little importance. Having said that you do seem to be aggrieved that I have called you out on it, and therefore maybe you do care just a little bit.
Food for thought; intentional or otherwise you come across as aggressive and pointlessly argumentative.
LoonR1 said:
pingu393 said:
I bought a front and rear camera for £42 off fleabay. The same camera can be had from China for £30. It's another witness that I can call if I think it will help. It would be silly to call a hostile witness .
Are they wide angle? What about the sides? Seriously, these aren't me being flippant. If you're going to rely on them then expect some serious cross examination if the other side fancies it. You think it's you vs your insurance company and that's your problem. It's you and your insurance co vs the other driver and their insurer. .Seems to me that all these people who see their own insurer as the enemy are the ones who stand to lose the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrhDdA0XQhs
I would use the video to defend myself. This may be to defend me to my insurer, or it may be to assist my insurer to defend my position against the other insurance company.
tapereel said:
rampantdidact said:
Just thinking about this since dash cams are getting ever more popular these days but could someone get done for speeding if someone caught them on their dash cam and reported it to the police?
Beginning of the traffic vigilantes!
Yes they can and do: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...Beginning of the traffic vigilantes!
gus607 said:
Not an approved device !
A device needs no approval, why do you think it does?Edited by tapereel on Sunday 15th March 07:58
vs the use of properly installed sppeed recording equipment in police vehicles which integrates the video and data recording so the download from that alone is deemed adequate evidence to prosecute for speeding
Sorry for bumping this thread but dashcams have been out for a few years now, has anyone heard of a story whereby someone was convicted for speeding from someone else's dashcam who then reported it to the police, provided that there was no other careless/dangerous driving or accident?
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
sonnenschein3000 said:
Sorry for bumping this thread but dashcams have been out for a few years now, has anyone heard of a story whereby someone was convicted for speeding from someone else's dashcam who then reported it to the police, provided that there was no other careless/dangerous driving or accident?
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I spoke with a chap in charge of a process unit some time ago and brought up this matter. He was of the opinion that dashcam footage is unlikely to be used as the sole evidence of speeding. He suggested that a few years ago he would have said never, but now realises you never can tell. i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
However, it has been used as evidence of excessive speed for the conditions. I failed either to ask or remember whether it was the offender's dashcam or that of a witness.
I would have thought that a run-of-the-mill dash cam would be a nightmare to prosecute speeding from.
An expert witness would be required for every case (and they don't come cheap).
Distance between fixed points to be measured and compared to the film.
Time between fixed points measured.
Parallax errors calculated.
Frame rate accuracy.
Confirmation that original footage hadn't been tampered with.
Confirmation of the time of the alleged offence and the time of the recording.
Lots more that I can't think of.
Does the prosecutor have to prove the speed you were doing, or just prove that you were over the limit (beyond reasonable doubt)?
An expert witness would be required for every case (and they don't come cheap).
Distance between fixed points to be measured and compared to the film.
Time between fixed points measured.
Parallax errors calculated.
Frame rate accuracy.
Confirmation that original footage hadn't been tampered with.
Confirmation of the time of the alleged offence and the time of the recording.
Lots more that I can't think of.
Does the prosecutor have to prove the speed you were doing, or just prove that you were over the limit (beyond reasonable doubt)?
One thing I did read on the north wales police website was when the public hands in footage of dangerous driving they're expected to add a witness statement and attend court to give evidence if required.
I doubt very much mr righteous dashcam owner is aware that uploading his footage to the police computer could mean him standing in the witness box at some point or the police are interested in prosecuting somebody for overtaking above the limit in a safe manner.
I doubt very much mr righteous dashcam owner is aware that uploading his footage to the police computer could mean him standing in the witness box at some point or the police are interested in prosecuting somebody for overtaking above the limit in a safe manner.
pingu393 said:
I would have thought that a run-of-the-mill dash cam would be a nightmare to prosecute speeding from.
An expert witness would be required for every case (and they don't come cheap).
Distance between fixed points to be measured and compared to the film.
Time between fixed points measured.
Parallax errors calculated.
Frame rate accuracy.
Confirmation that original footage hadn't been tampered with.
Confirmation of the time of the alleged offence and the time of the recording.
Lots more that I can't think of.
Does the prosecutor have to prove the speed you were doing, or just prove that you were over the limit (beyond reasonable doubt)?
For the offence of speeding?An expert witness would be required for every case (and they don't come cheap).
Distance between fixed points to be measured and compared to the film.
Time between fixed points measured.
Parallax errors calculated.
Frame rate accuracy.
Confirmation that original footage hadn't been tampered with.
Confirmation of the time of the alleged offence and the time of the recording.
Lots more that I can't think of.
Does the prosecutor have to prove the speed you were doing, or just prove that you were over the limit (beyond reasonable doubt)?
Prove you were exceeding the limit, not prove an exact speed.
sonnenschein3000 said:
Sorry for bumping this thread but dashcams have been out for a few years now, has anyone heard of a story whereby someone was convicted for speeding from someone else's dashcam who then reported it to the police, provided that there was no other careless/dangerous driving or accident?
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I dealt with 7 drivers in one incident on the M40. One dash cam in lane 1, 7 driver's at high speed on lanes 2 and 3. All convicted at Oxford magistrates court.i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
Derek Smith said:
I spoke with a chap in charge of a process unit some time ago and brought up this matter. He was of the opinion that dashcam footage is unlikely to be used as the sole evidence of speeding. He suggested that a few years ago he would have said never, but now realises you never can tell.
However, it has been used as evidence of excessive speed for the conditions. I failed either to ask or remember whether it was the offender's dashcam or that of a witness.
Then you and he are not seeking the right advice or assistance.However, it has been used as evidence of excessive speed for the conditions. I failed either to ask or remember whether it was the offender's dashcam or that of a witness.
Tablecloth said:
sonnenschein3000 said:
Sorry for bumping this thread but dashcams have been out for a few years now, has anyone heard of a story whereby someone was convicted for speeding from someone else's dashcam who then reported it to the police, provided that there was no other careless/dangerous driving or accident?
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I dealt with 7 drivers in one incident on the M40. One dash cam in lane 1, 7 driver's at high speed on lanes 2 and 3. All convicted at Oxford magistrates court.i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I got brought in for questioning over some dash cam footage last year and the policeman said that they couldn't prosecute me for speeding just from an uncalibrated dashcam's evidence (he could have been wrong/lying though I accept).
Retroman said:
Well bearing in mind all 4 of the Dash Cams i've ever owned were bought from China via ebay, without approval how does anyone know if the speed reported is accurate?
There are other ways of calculating speed.For example - if the area where the dash cam footage was obtained can be determined and the video FPS is known - the police could use fixed points of reference in the video to calculate the distance travelled over time.
The video may also show the vehicles speedo (in the case of biker helmet cams)
LocoCoco said:
Tablecloth said:
sonnenschein3000 said:
Sorry for bumping this thread but dashcams have been out for a few years now, has anyone heard of a story whereby someone was convicted for speeding from someone else's dashcam who then reported it to the police, provided that there was no other careless/dangerous driving or accident?
i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I dealt with 7 drivers in one incident on the M40. One dash cam in lane 1, 7 driver's at high speed on lanes 2 and 3. All convicted at Oxford magistrates court.i.e. typical situation of what I'm getting at...... dual carriageway where a car with a dashcam is in lane 1 and someone comes bombing it down lane 2 and the dashcam owner reports the dashcam footage to the police. There is no accident or any careless/dangerous driving involved, just speed.
I got brought in for questioning over some dash cam footage last year and the policeman said that they couldn't prosecute me for speeding just from an uncalibrated dashcam's evidence (he could have been wrong/lying though I accept).
Like DS, the officer hadn't taken the right advice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff