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

gutteruu

rocky wrote: »

Do you have sample video in HD?

The recording format is AVI which normally means MJpeg, with high space usage.

My mpeg4 camera can fit 5 hours on a 16GB card at 1080p. Granted it was more than double the price...

Were you caught for customs?

No customs (as I think it is under the threshold?) Don't have any HD clips, but they are very clear. It's not a top of the line unit, but any more than 30 quid and I wouldn't have bothered getting one. Your right about the file size, but after using it for a while I realised I only need the last 10 seconds recorded. If I was to buy again, I would only get a 4 or 8gb card.

Kintarō Hattori

00833827 wrote: »

Lads, enough of all these negative vibes, lets see the more decent side of life captured by dash cams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGEiA80ZL08

Whoever did that was a c'nut. The music combined with some of the clips had me on the verge of tears. I'm a fluckin' pussy.

Bigcheeze

CiniO wrote: »

Very possible, but this doesn't justify hitting a cyclist.
If he couldn't see because he was dazzled, he should have slowed down, especially that it's 20km/h zone while he must have been doing over 40km/h at least IMO.

Not trying to justify or defend anything, just my interpretation of why this happened.

HurtLocker

Hi guys I was thinking of getting a dash cam because of the appaling driving i see.Is there any chance people on here posting pics of what there's look like from the inside and outside,are they discrete. No need for a photoshoot just quick pics and maybe a link. Cheers.

Is there any need for a rear one? Had a taxi tailgating me earlier at 100kmh. Wish I'd got his numbers.

ironclaw

HurtLocker wrote: »

Hi guys I was thinking of getting a dash cam because of the appaling driving i see.Is there any chance people on here posting pics of what there's look like from the inside and outside,are they discrete. No need for a photoshoot just quick pics and maybe a link. Cheers.

Is there any need for a rear one? Had a taxi tailgating me earlier at 100kmh. Wish I'd got his numbers.

Not really very discrete but your average motorist won't be paying that much attention. If you were really looking, you would see it. If your worried about theft, you can always remove it when you stop. Personally I always leave mine up. If they take it, its only €50 or so not a €200 GPS.

The best option for rearview is a separate camera. The distance between your windscreen and boot will be too great to get anything of substance.

eamonnq

Is there anywhere in Dublin supplying and installing these (properly)?

dutopia

eamonnq wrote: »

Is there anywhere in Dublin supplying and installing these (properly)?

I don't know if there is, but you don't need someone else to install one for you. Most dashcams come with cradles like that found with GPS units.

As for supply, browse back in the thread for the different models of camera people use, and you can find them on eBay or Amazon.

randy hickey

HurtLocker wrote: »

Hi guys I was thinking of getting a dash cam because of the appaling driving i see.Is there any chance people on here posting pics of what there's look like from the inside and outside,are they discrete. No need for a photoshoot just quick pics and maybe a link. Cheers.

Is there any need for a rear one? Had a taxi tailgating me earlier at 100kmh. Wish I'd got his numbers.

There is a dedicated thread for anyone looking for advice on which one to buy;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056815237

the_syco

Women try to destroying a man's life over a $13 fare. Lucky he had a dashcam to prove he never molested them. Charges were dropped, but none were brought against the women over "insufficient evidence"...!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoIWr47Jtk

And the reddit about it; http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1ecy6o/destroying_a_mans_life_over_13/

Gumbo

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Whoever did that was a c'nut. The music combined with some of the clips had me on the verge of tears. I'm a fluckin' pussy.

Cheeky kiss from the Mazda driver at the end too, excellent!

dickwod1

the_syco wrote: »

Women try to destroying a man's life over a $13 fare. Lucky he had a dashcam to prove he never molested them. Charges were dropped, but none were brought against the women over "insufficient evidence"...!

Ceebag Gunts like that should be locked up for a week or two

joujoujou

Brakes tested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmjZnG3FdE

...passed.

BohsCeltic

joujoujou wrote: »

Brakes tested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmjZnG3FdE

...passed.

Going a bit fast no ?

Gosub

Going over 100 on that road is asking for trouble IMO.

the culture of deference

00833827 wrote: »

Lads, enough of all these negative vibes, lets see the more decent side of life captured by dash cams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGEiA80ZL08

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Whoever did that was a c'nut. The music combined with some of the clips had me on the verge of tears. I'm a fluckin' pussy.

Can you imagine that happening here. People stopping cars and getting out and helping others accross the road

CiniO wrote: »

Two videos I encountered on one of Polish forums. Madness:

That merc driver needs a ban.

ando wrote: »

This is what I caught a week or two ago:

Driving on the wrong side of the road, breaking a red light and taking an illegal turn...

Surely the cops can do that driver, anyone who does that shouldn't be driving

joujoujou

BohsCeltic wrote: »

Going a bit fast no ?

Some drivers say - no speed is safe speed. Some say - no speed is enough speed. So 50/50.

Gosub wrote: »

Going over 100 on that road is asking for trouble IMO.

Why? Were you there? Camera's point of view is much different than our own and often deceivable.

BohsCeltic

joujoujou wrote: »

Some drivers say - no speed is safe speed. Some say - no speed is enough speed. So 50/50.

Why? Were you there? Camera's point of view is much different than our own and often deceivable.

It shows the speed in the the top left corner though

joujoujou

BohsCeltic wrote: »

It shows the speed in the the top left corner though

Prove it's genuine.

Tallon

joujoujou wrote: »

Prove it's genuine.

Go to court with that video and they won't be long telling you it's genuine :rolleyes:

ironclaw

joujoujou wrote: »

Prove it's genuine.

I'm not bothered but you can easily count the frames and measure the distance travelled by suitable markers e.g. Road markings, poles etc. Theres really no point arguing that a GPS speed watermark is not genuine. :rolleyes:

Not arguing the speed though, people can travel at whatever speed they see fit as long as its on recklessly endangering anyone.

TINA1984

joujoujou wrote: »

Brakes tested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmjZnG3FdE

...passed.

2 bad drivers in that video....

dr.fuzzenstein

joujoujou wrote: »

Brakes tested...

...passed.

I'm pretty sure he didn't see you and most likely didn't hear you either. My guess, mid 50's, Father Jack hairdo and general appearance, on every kind of medication you can get, but sure isn't he a safe driver?
I hear the clip-clop of people arriiving and saying "You must approach every junction at 30 km/h!", bollocks.
If you where to drive through Ireland with that attitude you will have to drive everywhere at 30 km/h.

Ded_Zebra

You can hardy say he was going too fast when he clearly demonstrated that he can stop in the distance that he could see to be clear with room to spare.
Yes he was breaking the limit, but not going too fast.

gurramok

Gosub wrote: »

Going over 100 on that road is asking for trouble IMO.

If it was me, i'd be doing 80 max. Its way too narrow to see those side roads ahead and any possible dangers.

gurramok

gutteruu wrote: »

I have one for last 6 months. It has fell off the windscreen and bounced about 10 times now.

Rub a bit of hand sanitizer onto the back of the suction cup. It will then stick like glue.

gutteruu

joujoujou wrote: »

Brakes tested...

...passed.

Despite the people on here, I think the idiot who pulled out in front of you was wrong.

If it wasn't the speed they would find something else to moan about on here.

CiniO

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

You can hardy say he was going too fast when he clearly demonstrated that he can stop in the distance that he could see to be clear with room to spare.
Yes he was breaking the limit, but not going too fast.

My understanding is that requirement to drive at speed enabling driver to stop on a distance he can see to be clear, only applies to what you can see on the road at the moment of looking.

So f.e. if you are travelling at speed, come through blind bend and encounter a car parked (stationary) on the middle of the road, and you won't manage to stop in time and hit that car, then you clearly didn't obey that rule.

But if you drive at speed, see a clear road in front of you, and someone pulled in from the side road or hard shoulder straight in front of you, then no one can say that you drove at speed unabling you to stop on a distance of road seen to be clear, as at the moment you looked at the road, it was clear.

So even if OP didn't stop in time, it would be other driver's fault, as he pulled in. (obviously assuming speed limit there was 100km/h).

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he didn't see you and most likely didn't hear you either. My guess, mid 50's, Father Jack hairdo and general appearance, on every kind of medication you can get, but sure isn't he a safe driver?
I hear the clip-clop of people arriiving and saying "You must approach every junction at 30 km/h!", bollocks.
If you where to drive through Ireland with that attitude you will have to drive everywhere at 30 km/h.

Had very similar situation few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHE6oGdx-Fc

Ded_Zebra

CiniO wrote: »

My understanding is that requirement to drive at speed enabling driver to stop on a distance he can see to be clear, only applies to what you can see on the road at the moment of looking.

So f.e. if you are travelling at speed, come through blind bend and encounter a car parked (stationary) on the middle of the road, and you won't manage to stop in time and hit that car, then you clearly didn't obey that rule.

But if you drive at speed, see a clear road in front of you, and someone pulled in from the side road or hard shoulder straight in front of you, then no one can say that you drove at speed unabling you to stop on a distance of road seen to be clear, as at the moment you looked at the road, it was clear.

So even if OP didn't stop in time, it would be other driver's fault, as he pulled in. (obviously assuming speed limit there was 100km/h).

I'm finding this difficult to put into word but I'll give it a go.
When I say drive at a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear I'm including looking for things that could come in front of you and adjust your speed incase those things do happen. It's not just what you can see it's what you can see is lightly/possible to happen.
So for example, if there was a house on the corner of that junction Jou would have had to slow down more as he approached it as he couldn't see as far along the road that the jeep came out of.
Obviously these things can't always be predicted and accidents do happen but you do learn what signs to look out for (kind of like reading peoples body language)

I don't think this really explains what I mean (or make any sense at all) but it's the best I can do for now...

CiniO

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

I'm finding this difficult to put into word but I'll give it a go.
When I say drive at a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear I'm including looking for things that could come in front of you and adjust your speed incase those things do happen. It's not just what you can see it's what you can see is lightly/possible to happen.
So for example, if there was a house on the corner of that junction Jou would have had to slow down more as he approached it as he couldn't see as far along the road that the jeep came out of.
Obviously these things can't always be predicted and accidents do happen but you do learn what signs to look out for (kind of like reading peoples body language)

I don't think this really explains what I mean (or make any sense at all) but it's the best I can do for now...

It explains very good what you mean, and I think easiest description of what you said is just "defensive driving".

But AFAIK there is no law obliging driver to predict everything, even if it's possible to predict. And no one can be prosecuted or blamed for causing an accident for just not driving defensively.
So if you see the road is clear in front of you for distance you are able to stop, and someone pulls over from the side in the last moment, you can't be blamed for not obeying traffic law or for causing accident. Obviously you might be dead by then, but you can't be responsible for what happened.