On boards accident cameras

bungler

Saw this clip on youtube the other and just looking to see what peoples opinions are regarding them.

Does anyone have one? or does anyone know if you do have one and you are involved in an accident will the video stand up in court? I was in court over a crash where i was totally in the right but the other guy tried to lie about it,in the end he was proved wrong but if i had video evidence it would have been over a lot quicker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM7BO6RDe-Y

bmw535d

firstly that asshole drove so close to the lorry while his reversing light was on so the lorry driver could not see the car in his mirrors, does he not know if he can't see the mirrors the lorry driver can't see him, and why the fcuk did he not reverse aswell to try to get out of the way, he just sat there to get a nice claim.

bungler

Yea i agree he just sat there,most people would have moved,probably just got the camera and fancied a bit of a crash:D

af_thefragile

Did he honk?

Cuz obviously where the driver was, the guy in the lorry couldn't see him in his mirrors.

If he would have honked, the lorry driver might have stopped. Looked like the guy just waited there waiting for the accident to happen.

-Corkie-

bungler wrote: »

Yea i agree he just sat there,most people would have moved,probably just got the camera and fancied a bit of a crash:D

AFAIK they are no good. As in they do not stand up in court as evidence. There has been several threads about them allready OP.

bungler

-Corkie- wrote: »

AFAIK they are no good. As in they do not stand up in court as evidence. There has been several threads about them allready OP.

Sorry wasnt aware there was other threads,didnt mean to start a new one. Any idea why they are no good in court?

-Corkie-

bungler wrote: »

Sorry wasnt aware there was other threads,didnt mean to start a new one. Any idea why they are no good in court?

I dont know why I think its to do with our outdated legislation I suppose. Dont mind starting the new thread. Better than looking at speed camera threads..;)

GTE

bmw535d wrote: »

firstly that asshole drove so close to the lorry while his reversing light was on so the lorry driver could not see the car in his mirrors, does he not know if he can't see the mirrors the lorry driver can't see him, and why the fcuk did he not reverse aswell to try to get out of the way, he just sat there to get a nice claim.

It looks like there is a window for a rear view mirror and we have no way of knowing if there were cars behind him.

My guess is there was at least one which was slow to move back which is why the driver with the camera only moved back (although I think it was very slightly) after a few seconds.

C.D.

-Corkie- wrote: »

AFAIK they are no good. As in they do not stand up in court as evidence. There has been several threads about them allready OP.

Corkie could you elaborate on this? Don't remember hearing about this in the big Roadhawk thread (have one myself).

bungler

C.D. wrote: »

Corkie could you elaborate on this? Don't remember hearing about this in the big Roadhawk thread (have one myself).

C.D. how do you find the camera?did it cost much or was it hard to instal?

-Corkie-

C.D. wrote: »

Corkie could you elaborate on this? Don't remember hearing about this in the big Roadhawk thread (have one myself).

It wasnt in the Roadhawk thread. It was in another thread. I am nearly certain it was a AGS member that confirmed this. One member here called Cormie has a very good one. It has GPS which tells your speed and location. I would love one myself.

bmw535d

bbk wrote: »

It looks like there is a window for a rear view mirror and we have no way of knowing if there were cars behind him.

My guess is there was at least one which was slow to move back which is why the driver with the camera only moved back (although I think it was very slightly) after a few seconds.

the driver of the vehicle with the camera did not reverse 1mm, watch it again, also when he was hit he had his foot tight on the brakes as the car didn't bounce back or roll.he also had ample opertunity to drive around the truck when he saw his reverse lights come on even before he was stopped. he shouldn't have stopped so close to the truck plain and simple, if the truck is anything like my Mitsubishi canter the rear view mirror is only useful for pulling out tricky nose hairs.

C.D.

-Corkie- wrote: »

It wasnt in the Roadhawk thread. It was in another thread. I am nearly certain it was a AGS member that confirmed this. One member here called Cormie has a very good one. It has GPS which tells your speed and location. I would love one myself.

You wouldn't be able to point me in the right direction would you? Not much use if it is not admissible in court. Thanks.

C.D.

bungler wrote: »

C.D. how do you find the camera?did it cost much or was it hard to instal?

Cost ~€250, the only installation needed is to hide the power cable down along the A pillar and behind the dash. You could hard wire it to the car's power system but I wasn't bothered. It's great, video is not good enough to make out reg plates. Certainly if you couldn't use the video footage as evidence I would not bother with it.

GTE

bmw535d wrote: »

the driver of the vehicle with the camera did not reverse 1mm, watch it again, also when he was hit he had his foot tight on the brakes as the car didn't bounce back or roll.he also had ample opertunity to drive around the truck when he saw his reverse lights come on even before he was stopped. he shouldn't have stopped so close to the truck plain and simple, if the truck is anything like my Mitsubishi canter the rear view mirror is only useful for pulling out tricky nose hairs.

Im doubtful of whether he moved back myself to be honest.

I dont really mind any of that anyway. Im not defending the guy 100% but you are wrong when you said he should have moved back. None of us know the circumstances he was in a side from what was directly on front of him. That is my only point.

EDIT:
Upon reading that again if the brakes were slammed on it would seem to me there could have been traffic behind. Its also not the drivers problem if the truck driver cant figure out how to use a rear view mirror properly in the event that its not a good one. ie. Look out the bloody window yourself. My oh my.

squod

Most modern mobile record firly well, getting 480 X 360 lines of 3gp video @25fps out of my current one. Holder from the pound shop and you're laughing.

-Corkie-

C.D. wrote: »

You wouldn't be able to point me in the right direction would you? Not much use if it is not admissible in court. Thanks.

Some more info here and videos but not the thread I was looking for. Maybe Nice Guy Always will pay a visit here and let us know for definite.

smokie2008

bmw535d wrote: »

firstly that asshole drove so close to the lorry while his reversing light was on so the lorry driver could not see the car in his mirrors, does he not know if he can't see the mirrors the lorry driver can't see him, and why the fcuk did he not reverse aswell to try to get out of the way, he just sat there to get a nice claim.

And who's to say there wasn't another vehicle directly behind him and he couldn't reverse?? Actually quite likely

bungler

-Corkie- wrote: »

It wasnt in the Roadhawk thread. It was in another thread. I am nearly certain it was a AGS member that confirmed this. One member here called Cormie has a very good one. It has GPS which tells your speed and location. I would love one myself.

Yea i have seem Cormie's camera and its excellent i think he has a few of them up on youtube, must ask him about his

Crasp

IMO cars need "Black Boxes" as in the aviation industry.

I think some onboard and front + rear cameras to record Driver + the view ahead and behind.


And a data recorder for recording speed, gear, G force (i.e. impact), steering and brake input and indicator activity, TC/ABS trends.



big brother/nanny state blah blah blah

drBill

bungler wrote: »

Sorry wasnt aware there was other threads,didnt mean to start a new one. Any idea why they are no good in court?

Presumably because there are issues connected with proving that the recorded video is genuine.

bungler

drBill wrote: »

Presumably because there are issues connected with proving that the recorded video is genuine.

But if they are used in loads of countries around the world surely we could get a system set up so they can be genuine?