nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dash cam saves your ass (no Roundabout stuff please :)

Mycroft H

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRC7RO2tOJQ

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

vibe666

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's free

so is autoguard.

you just get more features in the pro version, which are definitely worth the tiny asking price imho, but not mandatory by any means.

mondeo

Deleted User wrote: »

The Gardaí are required to gather all evidence including cameras when a crime is committed I think, so yes I assume they would take it. But that would be a thread for legal discussion

A phone is a very personal thing to get taken of you if say a garda thinks your recording footage for some differant reason while your driving. I setup autoguard yesturday and it works great but got me thinking because I have alot of personal stuff on my phone I wouldn't want falling into someone else's hands, passwords for email and even my bank account and Facebook for some nosey law enforcement person to flick through if they took advantage.

It does look Abit dodgy driving around recording everything in a sense. A dedicated recorder would be more appropriate and one which is not so obvious.

cormie

Put an unlock password on your phone

Android allows this

vibe666

mondeo wrote: »

It does look Abit dodgy driving around recording everything in a sense. A dedicated recorder would be more appropriate and one which is not so obvious.

personally, i think having a dash cam mounted in your windscreen looks a lot more like you are recording stuff than just your phone sitting in a cradle on charge.

there's only one very obvious purpose for a dash cam, whereas your phone is just there for hands free calling, gps maps and charging on the road, so if it's spotted, who's to say it's recording or not, other than you? aside from everything else, a lot of people wouldn't even know that you could do it on your phone, so no suspicion at all.

and i have a screen lock pattern on mine, no need for a pin code and much harder to get past for anyone looking on your phone, altho they could just take out the memory card.

mondeo

vibe666 wrote: »

personally, i think having a dash cam mounted in your windscreen looks a lot more like you are recording stuff than just your phone sitting in a cradle on charge.

there's only one very obvious purpose for a dash cam, whereas your phone is just there for hands free calling, gps maps and charging on the road, so if it's spotted, who's to say it's recording or not, other than you? aside from everything else, a lot of people wouldn't even know that you could do it on your phone, so no suspicion at all.

and i have a screen lock pattern on mine, no need for a pin code and much harder to get past for anyone looking on your phone, altho they could just take out the memory card.

I'm using the free version of autoguard so you cant run it on the background so the recording display is visible at all times. I guess the paid version runs in the background which would be alot better.

I must look into getting a passcode setup on my phone. How does one protect the SD card? I think the best protection is to delete those photos of my gf of it for a start

C.D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_I4hE6OK4

Drunk pedestrian shuffles across the road at moderate speed without looking and nearly gets knocked down in Donnybrook, Dublin at 4AM. I first see him when I enter the junction, but I assume that is only running across one side of the road and will stop in the centre (like any sane person). I only realise he is not stopping and start to brake heavily once I have exited the junction. He doesn't even notice me till I beep, at which point I didn't want to swerve to the left (in case he speeds up) or to the right ( in case he stops or tries to go backwards). Very close call, he was centimeters from my bumper when I came to a stop.

Footage filmed with a this.

Edit: It looks like I brake a lot later than I do. The BlackVue software has a G sensor- the harsh deceleration starts at the end point of the yellow box.

CiniO

C.D. wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_I4hE6OK4

Drunk pedestrian shuffles across the road at moderate speed without looking and nearly gets knocked down in Donnybrook, Dublin at 4AM. I first see him when I enter the junction, but I assume that is only running across one side of the road and will stop in the centre (like any sane person). I only realise he is not stopping and start to brake once I have exited the junction. He doesn't even notice me till I beep, at which point I didn't want to swerve to the left (in case he speeds up) or to the right ( in case he stops or tries to go backwards). Very close call, he was centimeters from my bumper when I came to a stop.

Footage filmed with a this.

Maybe I shouldn't comment this, but in my opinion if you've seen him when you entered the junction, you should beep your horn straight away, not wait till last moment. I would also slow down a bit earlier.

Nissan doctor

^^^I think in this situation I'd be off the power with my foot hovering over the brake if I saw anyone running onto the road, from the opposite side or not.

'Assume' is the important word in your description. Close call alright.

C.D.

CiniO wrote: »

Maybe I shouldn't comment this, but in my opinion if you've seen him when you entered the junction, you should beep your horn straight away, not wait till last moment. I would also slow down a bit earlier.

Foot over accelerator as soon as I see him and slight braking, then I slam on them once I'm exiting the junction. If I beeped at everyone on the road in Dublin at night I'd have one hand on the horn permanently ^^

C.D.

CiniO wrote: »

Maybe I shouldn't comment this, but in my opinion if you've seen him when you entered the junction, you should beep your horn straight away, not wait till last moment. I would also slow down a bit earlier.

And no, this is a dash cam thread, not a rate C.D.'s driving thread. The whole affair lasted 3-4 seconds so it's not as if I had time to think through what I was going to do. Maybe I was not driving as Gay Byrne thinks we all should, but everything I did was pretty reasonable/normal- it's pretty easy to sit in an armchair and make comments.

This is a good example of where if I had knocked him, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I was not negligent or careless in my driving, which would be difficult without a witness or footage like this.

CiniO

C.D. wrote: »

And no, this is a dash cam thread, not a rate C.D.'s driving thread.

If you are showing your videos here, you must accept fact that some people will comment on them.

Maybe I was not driving as Gay Byrne thinks we all should, but everything I did was pretty reasonable/normal.

For me it doesn't look normal as there is a pedestrian running through the street which can be seen from far away, and you barely slow down and don't use the horn early enough. Your reaction was really in the last possible moment.

This is a good example of where if I had knocked him, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I was not negligent or careless in my driving, which would be difficult without a witness or footage like this.

I'm afraid this footage could prove otherwise - that you were negligent, especially if you declared what you said above - that you have seen this guy from the moment you entered the junction, but even though we can't really see any reaction on the video.
As I said - first thing would be a horn straight away. That's what horns are for. Also slowing down earlier would be probably much appreciated.

[Deleted User]

mondeo wrote: »

A phone is a very personal thing to get taken of you if say a garda thinks your recording footage for some differant reason while your driving. I setup autoguard yesturday and it works great but got me thinking because I have alot of personal stuff on my phone I wouldn't want falling into someone else's hands, passwords for email and even my bank account and Facebook for some nosey law enforcement person to flick through if they took advantage.

It does look Abit dodgy driving around recording everything in a sense. A dedicated recorder would be more appropriate and one which is not so obvious.

Yes, its a personal thing, but that means nothing. Its contains evidence, which the Gardaí have a legal right and duty to investigate.

cormie wrote: »

Put an unlock password on your phone Android allows this

Yes, you could do that, however, if the phone contains evidence, then I assume you could be charged with obstruction of justice? Again, wrong thread, so I will just shut up about it. :pac:

C.D.

CiniO wrote: »

If you are showing your videos here, you must accept fact that some people will comment on them.

Quite frankly, if "the high horse" culture was the norm for this thread, nobody would post their interesting videos here and IMO that would be shame, especially considering what this thread is supposed to be about.

CiniO wrote: »

For me it doesn't look normal as there is a pedestrian running through the street which can be seen from far away, and you barely slow down and don't use the horn early enough. Your reaction was really in the last possible moment.

For sure! As I said the whole event is 3-4 seconds long and while I anticipated it, I didn't take the kind of extensive action you would. I would be willing to wager 99% of motorists wouldn't- jaywalking is very common in Dublin CC. Ultimately I didn't have an accident and I am sure there are drivers out there who would have. As I said, it's very easy to sit in a comfy armchair, pass judgement and write an eloquent response.

CiniO wrote: »

I'm afraid this footage could prove otherwise - that you were negligent, especially if you declared what you said above - that you have seen this guy from the moment you entered the junction, but even though we can't really see any reaction on the video.
As I said - first thing would be a horn straight away. That's what horns are for. Also slowing down earlier would be probably much appreciated.

I would disagree, pedestrians equally owe a duty of care to themselves and other road users. The litmus test for such civil cases (had there been an accident) would be if the pedestrian had acted with a duty of care that befits our favorite person from tort cases the reasonable man. This pedestrian in particular could be shown to have breached this duty of care by:

1) Not taking due care and consideration when assessing his surroundings (i.e shuffling across the road like mad yoke)
2) Not utilizing the pedestrian crossing facilities provided

Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians do not have automatic right of way by virtue of being pedestrians.

In any case, without footage or a witness, a driver in these circumstances would find it hard to prove that the pedestrian displayed either whole or contributory negligence, which is what this thread is about (Dash cam saves your ass etc.).

In the spirit of the thread I have zero interest in discussing my driving (points 1 & 2) with you or anyone. However, I think point 3 (issues of negligence, liability) are more relevant and there is merit in discussing it. I should mention that the Irish court systems treats video footage as "real" evidence, though whether it is shown to the jury is at the discretion of the judge.

[Deleted User]

C.D. wrote: »

I would disagree, pedestrians equally owe a duty of care to themselves and other road users. The litmus test for such civil cases (had there been an accident) would be if the pedestrian had acted with a duty of care that befits our favorite person from tort cases the reasonable man. This pedestrian in particular could be shown to have breached this duty of care by:

1) Not taking due care and consideration when assessing his surroundings (i.e shuffling across the road like mad yoke)
2) Not utilizing the pedestrian crossing facilities provided

Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians do not have automatic right of way by virtue of being pedestrians.

In any case, without footage or a witness, a driver in these circumstances would find it hard to prove that the pedestrian displayed either whole or contributory negligence, which is what this thread is about (Dash cam saves your ass etc.).

In the spirit of the thread I have zero interest in discussing my driving (points 1 & 2) with you or anyone. However, I think point 3 (issues of negligence, liability) are more relevant and there is merit in discussing it. I should mention that the Irish court systems treats video footage as "real" evidence, though whether it is shown to the jury is at the discretion of the judge.

Yep, he should have used the pedestrian lights provided.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

thethingis

wrmwit wrote: »

I remember hearing a story on the wireless about this type of scam happening to someone in Dublin. There are so many CCTV's around the place between Garda ones and shop owners CCTV that I'm sure you'd be able to prove it.

Another pointer is that no matter how big or small an accident, whether a scam or not, always call the guards, so at least they're third party and witness if it ends up in court.

Do the guards say if no one is injured just exchange details?

C.D.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, he should have used the pedestrian lights provided.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

I was looking for the ratio decidendi of cases where the pedestrian's negligence was res ipsa loquitur, as it would be in a case where someone runs across the road. There could of course be contributory negligence from the driver if he too breached his duty of care. I am certain there exists judicial precedent in Ireland (and most certainly the UK) for cases where pedestrians have been found to be wholly negligent. There are stacks of common law cases where the tort of negligence has been found on either the side of the driver or pedestrian but it's late and I can't find ones where precedent was laid out.

Jimbob 83

Deffo gonna invest in one of these when i get the new car

CiniO

C.D. wrote: »

For sure! As I said the whole event is 3-4 seconds long and while I anticipated it, I didn't take the kind of extensive action you would. I would be willing to wager 99% of motorists wouldn't- jaywalking is very common in Dublin CC. Ultimately I didn't have an accident and I am sure there are drivers out there who would have. As I said, it's very easy to sit in a comfy armchair, pass judgement and write an eloquent response.

I would disagree, pedestrians equally owe a duty of care to themselves and other road users. The litmus test for such civil cases (had there been an accident) would be if the pedestrian had acted with a duty of care that befits our favorite person from tort cases the reasonable man. This pedestrian in particular could be shown to have breached this duty of care by:

1) Not taking due care and consideration when assessing his surroundings (i.e shuffling across the road like mad yoke)
2) Not utilizing the pedestrian crossing facilities provided

Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians do not have automatic right of way by virtue of being pedestrians.

In any case, without footage or a witness, a driver in these circumstances would find it hard to prove that the pedestrian displayed either whole or contributory negligence, which is what this thread is about (Dash cam saves your ass etc.).

In the spirit of the thread I have zero interest in discussing my driving (points 1 & 2) with you or anyone. However, I think point 3 (issues of negligence, liability) are more relevant and there is merit in discussing it. I should mention that the Irish court systems treats video footage as "real" evidence, though whether it is shown to the jury is at the discretion of the judge.

I never said pedestrian was without blame.
I just wanted to express my point of view, that this particular video shocked me a bit, because of lack of driver's reaction until last moment, even though pedestrian could be seen running through the street few seconds earlier.
I would react way earlier, probably as most of drivers would.

rolion

CiniO wrote: »

I never said pedestrian was without blame.
I just wanted to express my point of view, that this particular video shocked me a bit, because of lack of driver's reaction until last moment, even though pedestrian could be seen running through the street few seconds earlier.
I would react way earlier, probably as most of drivers would.

I agree with you but...we are watching the footage from behind out PC'screens and reading and knowing and having time to ... digest the situation !! But,out there,in real full running event,i doubt many of us will realise what's going on in seconds ...

Is like watching football on TV...all of us are better at scoring and passing with a can of drink in hand and sitting on the sofa !

CiniO

rolion wrote: »

I agree with you but...we are watching the footage from behind out PC'screens and reading and knowing and having time to ... digest the situation !! But,out there,in real full running event,i doubt many of us will realise what's going on in seconds ...

That's what drivers are supposed to do - realise what's going on in seconds, or even milliseconds. And that's what most drivers do, including C.D. as he said he saw pedestrian from the moment he entered junction.
That's the thing which I can't understand.
You drive a car, see a pedestrian running through the road, and do nothing, just to eventually step on a brakes and horn in the last moment.
If he wanted to let pedestrian cross, then he should have slowed down way earlier.
If he didn't plan to let pedestrian cross, he should have used his horn way earlier, as this was nearly obvious pedestrian was going to run in front of him.

Is like watching football on TV...all of us are better at scoring and passing with a can of drink in hand and sitting on the sofa !

I can't play football so whenever I watch lads play the match, I'm impressed as I know I wouldn't be able to do any of the stuff they do.
But I can drive, and in this case, I just see a major error on driver's side.

C.D.

CiniO wrote: »

If he didn't plan to let pedestrian cross, he should have used his horn way earlier, as this was nearly obvious pedestrian was going to run in front of him.

CiniO wrote: »

because of lack of driver's reaction until last moment

It really wasn't until nearly second 5. From seeing him at second 4 to second 5 he could be any one of hundreds of jaywalkers on a Saturday night. From me seeing him to me braking is less than a second.

0.04- I see him
0.04-0.045 I assess
0.045-0.06 Braking
0.05-0.06 Horn
0.06- I am at a complete stop

Watch the timings of it. When you are watching the video, you already know that there is a pedestrian on the road, who is going to run out, so you are already in the appropriate mindframe. You are watching the road for this guy and know he is coming as opposed to driving and having your attention focused on several different things at one.

vibe666

i don' tthink it would be unreasonable to expect the pedestrian to be running across the first half of the road (to get out of the way of the oncoming car) to the centre point and to stop, wait for the camera car to pass and to continue to cross behind him once he was past (as most people would on a busy road).

until he gets to the centre point of the road and keeps going, there's no reason to expect he's actually going to run out in front of you, at which point he's behind the traffic light anyway and partially obscured.

as the guy says, it's easy to pass judgement from the safety of behind your keyboard, but from a video it's difficult to judge speed and real world visibility etc.

i think we can save the over critical comments for another thread, as this is supposed to be all about how dashcams are a useful tool in the case of accidents and near misses.

Markcheese

A few years ago , a drunk guy and his friends cross a dublin street as a bus is coming, he stops on the White line in middle of road . Bus slows down .. Then drunk guy jumps in front of bus ( to stop it??). Judge decides the bus driver was 50% at fault because driver didn't do emergency stop... Dublin bus paid out over a million..(cos drunk guy was paralysed,no scam involved)

Anyway point is just because the guy was pissed, J-walking(staggering ) after he saw the bus and then deliberately jumped in front of it , the driver was still wrong....camera wouldn't make a difference... No links cos I read it in the examiner about 4 years ago....

Tea drinker

Bus driver may have avoided the emergency stop as more people could be "injured" by the emergency stop. Wasn't that a bit of an ould scam too?

IMHO In CD's vid he did make an emergency stop when required and reacted quickly when required. Some things you just have to "put a pin in them" and continue assessing other road issues and come back to them with further actions as necessary. You can't keep slowing down and speeding up to cover every possible outcome, and you can't become fixated on one persons poor behaviour cos then your going to miss another's.

Nissan doctor

C.D. wrote: »

It really wasn't until nearly second 5. From seeing him at second 4 to second 5 he could be any one of hundreds of jaywalkers on a Saturday night. From me seeing him to me braking is less than a second.

0.04- I see him
0.04-0.045 I assess
0.045-0.06 Braking
0.05-0.06 Horn
0.06- I am at a complete stop

Watch the timings of it. When you are watching the video, you already know that there is a pedestrian on the road, who is going to run out, so you are already in the appropriate mindframe. You are watching the road for this guy and know he is coming as opposed to driving and having your attention focused on several different things at one.

I think the point of what people are saying(and I've been on the recieving end of it myself here) is that in the video( a tiny window on a computer screen taken with a small dash cam) you can see the guy running onto the street at 0:02, so actually in the saituation, real world, with the live view from a windscreen, you should have easily been able to see him at the same time or even earlier.

I agree that you didn't do any different then most drivers would have but I think the worst possible mistake is 'assuming' that he was only going to run to the center and stop, especially at 4am and when you will have observed a waiting taxi on your left, which in itself, instantly warns you of the possibility of someone running to, or getting out of the taxi. "Assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups" or so goes the phrase.

MarkR

I have a cheap ebay job. Video quality is poor enough for alleged 720p.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBwYunXn1ho

[Deleted User]

MarkR wrote: »

I have a cheap ebay job. Video quality is poor enough for alleged 720p.

"Jesus Christ!" I love it ha :P

MarkR

Deleted User wrote: »

"Jesus Christ!" I love it ha :P

I know, she sounds like an awful culshie in that.

I sound 10% more American than I actually am.

opinion guy

MarkR wrote: »

I know, she sounds like an awful culshie in that. I sound 10% more American than I actually am.

Lol...'He's probably doing...his top speed'

Spoofer :P

Your one of those who can't accept not knowing the answer eh ? :P

CiniO

MarkR wrote: »

I know, she sounds like an awful culshie in that. I sound 10% more American than I actually am.

That wasn't really that fast.

THat's what fast overtake looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IibcmOyXBZ4