dash-cam: worth it?

[Felonious Crud]

I'm pretty sure we've covered this topic before, but I couldn't find the thread(s). What are the forum's views on dash-cams? Useful, pita. self-incriminating, sent by God to make the world a better place? Or something else?

My car is having some other stuff done and the fitter suggested I think about whether a dash-cam would be a good idea.

 

[safrane]

My view is that it just records what has happened. It does nothing to prevent it occurring in the first place.

 

[HTAFC4200]

But it does record when someone other than you has been a muppet and its their word against yours.

Especially if you've gone into the back of them or similar.

Also in parking mode it might just catch the **** that slams into you at the supermarket.

I personally wouldn't be without.

 

[lifes2short]

defo worth having, been very useful in my motors and my kids motors in proving that third party fully at fault, if the other way round just swallow the memory card

 

[PKM_999]

I was travelling up the A1(M) on Friday night after picking my daughter up from Uni and I was fairly motoring in the outside lane, when a Ford Puma (one of the newish ones not the old type) came flying up behind me. He must have been doing 110-120mph and as he couldn't get past me, swerved across all the lanes, into the hard shoulder and undertook all 3 cars. I heard what sounded like a bit of a skid as he hit the hard shoulder surface but he carried on. Saw the same car pulled over in the hard shoulder with another car about 20 minutes later, not sure if it was a mate he was racing or something. I've done a lot of miles over the years and it was the worst/most stupid driving I'd ever seen.

Anyway, my point is if he'd hit the back of me and my dash cam shows I was exceeding the 70mph, am I actually going to use that as evidence?

*I'm not saying I was exceeding that speed, officer, even if there was a bit of a tailwind behind me. I would never, ever do that. Obviously.

 

[mjheathcote]

In my daily has proved third party at fault without queble.
Last near miss, could have proved who was at fault, even if no survivors....

 

[lozcb]

I have had them in all my diggers , and even still have a couple in my draw , just havent got round to installing them yet , they sound a good idea , but i do know someone that was involved in an accident , his fault and the first thing the police did was remove the cam for evidence , as said preciously its a double edged sword

 

[Wack61]

My view is that it just records what has happened. It does nothing to prevent it occurring in the first place.

Which could be useful if you're ever in a crash that could go 50/50 without a dashcam

 

[HTAFC4200]

I had a driver pull out on me out of a line of parked cars, trying to carry out a 3 point turn. I was right on top of her (ooooh errrr) when she pulled out, emergency stop for me.

She immediately knew she'd screwed up massively and apologised, but I'm glad I would have had the evidence anyway.

 

[HTAFC4200]

I was travelling up the A1(M) on Friday night after picking my daughter up from Uni and I was fairly motoring in the outside lane, when a Ford Puma (one of the newish ones not the old type) came flying up behind me. He must have been doing 110-120mph and as he couldn't get past me, swerved across all the lanes, into the hard shoulder and undertook all 3 cars. I heard what sounded like a bit of a skid as he hit the hard shoulder surface but he carried on. Saw the same car pulled over in the hard shoulder with another car about 20 minutes later, not sure if it was a mate he was racing or something. I've done a lot of miles over the years and it was the worst/most stupid driving I'd ever seen.

Anyway, my point is if he'd hit the back of me and my dash cam shows I was exceeding the 70mph, am I actually going to use that as evidence?

*I'm not saying I was exceeding that speed, officer, even if there was a bit of a tailwind behind me. I would never, ever do that. Obviously.

**** those tail winds, they just sneak up on you lol

 

[joered]

For a while in Italy they were pretending to fall in front of your car at traffic lights, and then claim you had hit them, dash cam stoped all that nonsence. so defo get one

 

[Gazcw]

I would say useful. I keep the speed turned off mine so it does not record, but I guess if they wanted to it is probably held somewhere.

 

[Scaf]

My dashcams have helped me prove 4x none fault accidents
- valet parking
- M25 rear end
- hit and “tried to run”
- car park knock (£3900) damage

My son used footage to claim for pothole damage to his wheel and has also provided footage to police as he happened to capture relevant footage.

I provided footage in a drink drive situation when an appeal went out.

So we have them in all our cars.
The one in the Strad also monitors when it’s parked, but thankfully never needed to recall footage.

These days you don’t need to spend a fortune.

 

[HTAFC4200]

I have a garmin mini 2 and joust bought a continuous OBD charger, so will have it in parking mode for the first time on my C63.

It has a 12v cutoff so won't kill the battery.

My 640D was hit in the car park once, if only dashcams had been a thing then.

My mate got side swiped whilst parked just the other day.

 

[midlifecrisis]

In my daily has proved third party at fault without queble.
Last near miss, could have proved who was at fault, even if no survivors....

The bleep function seems to be delayed on yours...I heard swearing (my sensitive ears!) then a bleep.

Can you with cameras fitted, see registration numbers and or driver of the other vehicle? Is the evidence admissable in court?

 

[HTAFC4200]

The bleep function seems to be delayed on yours...I heard swearing (my sensitive ears!) then a bleep.

Can you with cameras fitted, see registration numbers and or driver of the other vehicle? Is the evidence admissable in court?

Well I was just behind an accident and the police came straight over and wanted to know if my dashcam had spotted anything.

I'd guess it is absolutely admissible as evidence.

 

[2b1ask1]

Submitted files from my van one a couple of times. It is the only motor I have fitted with one atm. I will probably end up getting others. My kids bought m in me for me after the loony tried suicide on me and 7 others on the A45 a few years back.

Nave thought about the self incriminating side of things and the Mas is probably the only motor I get Leary in, on private roads that is.

 

[mjheathcote]

The bleep function seems to be delayed on yours...I heard swearing (my sensitive ears!) then a bleep.

Can you with cameras fitted, see registration numbers and or driver of the other vehicle? Is the evidence admissable in court?

No it's not delayed. That's me pushing the save button. When you do it saves so many minutes before and after you push the button. In the case of an impact it does it automatically.
In that particular case I couldn't make out any registration number, due to speed and lights glare.

 

[Scaf]

This accident (watch the red car on the right of the screen) was captured on the rear camera in Belgium and was provided to the Belgium police.

In the original footage you can capture the registration number of the car, and all prove that no brake lights cam in until point of impact.

 

[midlifecrisis]

No it's not delayed. That's me pushing the save button. When you do it saves so many minutes before and after you push the button. In the case of an impact it does it automatically.
In that particular case I couldn't make out any registration number, due to speed and lights glare.

It's a bit obvious if the white car hit you who was at fault. Following the accident, you could probably tell who got out of the driver's and passenger's side. This is important for 'fault' claims.

My point is, high definition and fast frame rate are important with dashcams and cheaper ones might not have the resolution or clarity to record important legal facts to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.