Dash Cam Speeding
Discussion
tapereel said:
A device needs no approval, why do you think it does?
“Extensive enquiries were conducted by North Wales Police, investigators on behalf of Go Safe and we also sought advice from road safety legal specialists. ”Edited by tapereel on Sunday 15th March 07:58
One of your cases, Steve?
Police forces often send these videos to Road Safety Support Ltd in Essex. Steve writes 30 page reports about the contents of the videos.
I don't know how these things work, but the easiest method would be a simple GPS chip, and all a GPS chip does is log the signal from the available satellites - you can see the values in an XML document if you export the data that way.
A more expensive chip will acquire the satellites faster, may use A-GPS to speed that process up further, and will be more precise, suffer from fewer "artefacts" in the recording, but we're looking at the difference between a track running in the middle of a 3m wide path or slightly off to the left.
Logging data that shows 70mph vs 90mph is well within the capabilities of the cheapest kit out there
A more expensive chip will acquire the satellites faster, may use A-GPS to speed that process up further, and will be more precise, suffer from fewer "artefacts" in the recording, but we're looking at the difference between a track running in the middle of a 3m wide path or slightly off to the left.
Logging data that shows 70mph vs 90mph is well within the capabilities of the cheapest kit out there
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?
Video. Ascertain the distance between two known points (bridge, gantry, etc). Speed is distance / time. This already happens - RSS Ltd provides reports for the police. See newspaper example Steve posted earlier.Blakewater said:
If you were involved in an accident and you wanted to use the footage for insurance purposes, I imagine it could be held against you if you were seen to be speeding. Even if someone failed to give way to you, for example, if you were speeding to a large degree you would have presented a danger by approaching faster than could be expected.
Unless you're doing silly speeds it's highly unlikely. It's not much of a defence from someone who should give way to say "I saw him and he looked to be speeding, so I pulled out in front of him"
LoonR1 said:
Blakewater said:
If you were involved in an accident and you wanted to use the footage for insurance purposes, I imagine it could be held against you if you were seen to be speeding. Even if someone failed to give way to you, for example, if you were speeding to a large degree you would have presented a danger by approaching faster than could be expected.
Unless you're doing silly speeds it's highly unlikely. It's not much of a defence from someone who should give way to say "I saw him and he looked to be speeding, so I pulled out in front of him"
"
It's not much of a defence from someone who should give way to say "I saw him and he looked to be speeding, so I pulled out in front of him"No, but if a road has a fairly low speed limit because of junctions with poor visibility and someone goes hammering along it at high speed regardless of that, then someone pulls out in front of him because they simply didn't see him coming in time and had no way to, surely the speeding driver should take the blame for that? Without dash cam evidence of him speeding he could simply say the other driver pulled out in front of him and it would seem like more of a cut and dry case going in his favour.1. I did say silly speeds
2. An accident after what you're describing is likely to result in a lot more than a bit of bent metal
3. The driver pulling out should use other clues like turning the radio off and winding the window down
4. If it's the "speeders" dashcam do you think he's going to offer it up? If it's the other driver then it won't show much of interest anyway.
Blakewater said:
LoonR1 said:
Blakewater said:
If you were involved in an accident and you wanted to use the footage for insurance purposes, I imagine it could be held against you if you were seen to be speeding. Even if someone failed to give way to you, for example, if you were speeding to a large degree you would have presented a danger by approaching faster than could be expected.
Unless you're doing silly speeds it's highly unlikely. It's not much of a defence from someone who should give way to say "I saw him and he looked to be speeding, so I pulled out in front of him"
2. An accident after what you're describing is likely to result in a lot more than a bit of bent metal
3. The driver pulling out should use other clues like turning the radio off and winding the window down
4. If it's the "speeders" dashcam do you think he's going to offer it up? If it's the other driver then it won't show much of interest anyway.
agtlaw said:
Video. Ascertain the distance between two known points (bridge, gantry, etc). Speed is distance / time. This already happens - RSS Ltd provides reports for the police. See newspaper example Steve posted earlier.
Yep. I did exactly this a few months back on the thread where the biker got stopped in London by mounted police.The biker was claiming on his video that he wasn't speeding and that his speedo (which showed well over 70mph I believe) wasn't accurate due to 'non-standard sprockets'.
I measured the distance he covered over several seconds of his video on Google maps - it was easy to show that he was well in excess of the speed limit despite his protestations to the contrary.
Blakewater said:
If someone is found to have a dashcam, or has told their insurers they do, could the police or the insurers seize it if it's not offered up willingly if they believe it might hold evidence of bad driving?
It's easy to say it wasn't switched on and by the time they realise you have one, the card has mysteriously disappeared 
.Blakewater said:
LoonR1 said:
Blakewater said:
If you were involved in an accident and you wanted to use the footage for insurance purposes, I imagine it could be held against you if you were seen to be speeding. Even if someone failed to give way to you, for example, if you were speeding to a large degree you would have presented a danger by approaching faster than could be expected.
Unless you're doing silly speeds it's highly unlikely. It's not much of a defence from someone who should give way to say "I saw him and he looked to be speeding, so I pulled out in front of him"
Blakewater said:
If someone is found to have a dashcam, or has told their insurers they do, could the police or the insurers seize it if it's not offered up willingly if they believe it might hold evidence of bad driving?
If it's a condition of their insurance then yes the insurer can. However, these are only prevalent in fleet policies and not on personal lines policies. People who have one on their own cars don't have them because their insurer insists on them. They do crack me up though, that people are massively opposed to black boxes as they spy on them and then voluntarily stick a camera on their car
LoonR1 said:
They do crack me up though, that people are massively opposed to black boxes as they spy on them and then voluntarily stick a camera on their car
One is for the user's benefit, one isn't .It's the difference between having a private security firm wandering around your gated estate and having the state police wandering around. One won't mind if you transgress, one will.
Moonhawk said:
Yep. I did exactly this a few months back on the thread where the biker got stopped in London by mounted police.
The biker was claiming on his video that he wasn't speeding and that his speedo (which showed well over 70mph I believe) wasn't accurate due to 'non-standard sprockets'.
I measured the distance he covered over several seconds of his video on Google maps - it was easy to show that he was well in excess of the speed limit despite his protestations to the contrary.
Genuine question - how do you determine that the frame rate on the video replay is accurate? The biker was claiming on his video that he wasn't speeding and that his speedo (which showed well over 70mph I believe) wasn't accurate due to 'non-standard sprockets'.
I measured the distance he covered over several seconds of his video on Google maps - it was easy to show that he was well in excess of the speed limit despite his protestations to the contrary.
pingu393 said:
One is for the user's benefit, one isn't .
It's the difference between having a private security firm wandering around your gated estate and having the state police wandering around. One won't mind if you transgress, one will.
But users of a dashcam seem to want their insurer to give them a discount as a result. Can't have it both ways. .It's the difference between having a private security firm wandering around your gated estate and having the state police wandering around. One won't mind if you transgress, one will.
Neonblau said:
Genuine question - how do you determine that the frame rate on the video replay is accurate?
I didn't - it was a reasonable assumption that the playback frame rate was representative of the recorded frame rate. Nothing in the video made me think there was a significant difference in the encoded vs playback frame rates.The video would have to have been playing back at around 1/2 normal speed for the biker to have been travelling below the limit as he claimed. Such a dramatic reduction in the playback speed of the footage would have been immediately obvious.....so even if the encoded vs playback frame rates were slightly different (50fps vs 48fps for example) - it makes no difference to the conclusion (i.e. that he was speeding). The only question that could not be answered with any degree of accuracy without more information is "by how much".
Of course - in a court of law, this probably wouldn't stand - but then again, there are software packages that can determine the encoded frame rate of video.
LoonR1 said:
kapiteinlangzaam said:
My dashcam is for my protection.
I wont be telling my insurance company I have one (ever) unless the circumstances suit me.
How can it protect you? The only thing it will help with is an insurance claim. I wont be telling my insurance company I have one (ever) unless the circumstances suit me.
.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff