Dashcam...Solve or create problems?

[KrisZ]

I think it's silly to consider only the upside potential of having video available while ignoring the downside risk.
But whatever, you do you.
Incidentally, the PO can easily contact your cell carrier and determine whether you were on the phone when any accident occurred, no court order needed, although they can easily get one.

At this point I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Please show me where I only consider the upsides? I acknowledged that under some very specific and rare circumstances a dashcam can work against the user, but those would be very rare and usually tied to the user's lack of judgment and talking to much. And you failed to show me any rear world examples.

So you tell me what's more silly. Using the tech for your advantage, even though there is a very small chance of it working against you? Or, being hyper focused on a very rare circumstance, without any actual proof of it happening, and making your decision based on that?

 

[fdcg27]

At this point I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Funny, I thought the same of you.

 

[goblin]

Funny, I thought the same of you.

Oh come on now. If you constantly do something that shouldn't be on a cam - don't get a cam. There will always be some other cam to catch you, but at least you'd have done your due diligence.

In all other cases, it's pure benefit. You can go your whole life without having a windshield washer throw themselves on your hood and start screaming bloody murder, or a scalper reversing into you. It only has to happen once to make the difference between an interesting 20 minutes with a cop and a lousy five years of lawsuits.

Single example of what used to be a whole industry. I just hope that eventually dashcams will kill these scum' business away:
https://www.carscoops.com/2024/10/alleged-insurance-fraud-caught-on-dashcam-saves-victim/

And there are places where this is endemic. Places with a higher prevalence of elderly people in Florida were crazy in this regard. You couldn't drive a Buick or a Cadillac and afford to not be first at the red light.

 

[fdcg27]

Okay, but one shouldn't ignore the fact that one also makes mistakes which can have tragic consequences.
It's not a one-way street and not always someone else who is at fault.
That video can help resolve ambiguity is undeniable, but that works both ways.
Does anyone here really want to proclaim that any accident will always be the fault of another?

 

[goblin]

...
Does anyone here really want to proclaim that any accident will always be the fault of another?

Of course not.
What we mostly proclaim is that should the accident be your fault, you having a dashcam is a percentage of the risk, not 100% of it. You will still have all the chances of getting caught on the other party's dashcam, or on an intersection cam, etc. If you ran through a schoolbus - footage will eventually be found, one way or the other.
And the percentage of risk that your cam brings you is gone the second you take it out and put it in your pocket, should you still be mobile enough to do it.
If you are that paranoid - rotate two memory cards, swap them at the end of each day, keep yesterday's card on you. Should you get into an at-fault accident - take the dashcam out, take the memory card out, slot yesterday's card in, close the trapdoor, drop the camera on the floor. If they find it - hey, it has yesterday's footage on it, for some reason it didn't record today. Sorry, your honnor.
But even that is overkill.

When you are not at fault, however, you are 100% in control of providing your footage. You don't have to subpoena it, beg CCTV owners, etc.

When you weigh both in, it's a no-brainer.

 

[BeerCan]

for those thinking you can just "lose" video evidence, this rule is applicable
you might get away with it but you also might not. Its spoliation of evidence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
Rule 37 (e)

(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;

(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or

(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

 

[KrisZ]

for those thinking you can just "lose" video evidence, this rule is applicable
you might get away with it but you also might not. Its spoliation of evidence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
Rule 37 (e)

1. I think that’s for criminal cases, not civil or traffic infractions. Plus they would need to prove a reasonable person would expect litigation from the incident.
2. Dashcam footage is not normally preserved, unlike emails or text messages.
3. These cheap Chinese made dashcams are very prone to corrupting SD cards or for failing to record.
4. The SD cards are extremely small and very easy to misplace. I misplaced many of them, only to find some of them years later.
5. There is always an unfortunate boating incident

 

[fdcg27]

1. I think that’s for criminal cases, not civil or traffic infractions. Plus they would need to prove a reasonable person would expect litigation from the incident.
2. Dashcam footage is not normally preserved, unlike emails or text messages.
3. These cheap Chinese made dashcams are very prone to corrupting SD cards or for failing to record.
4. The SD cards are extremely small and very easy to misplace. I misplaced many of them, only to find some of them years later.
5. There is always an unfortunate boating incident

The rules of discovery apply either way.

 

[burbguy82]

I just installed a dashcam in my wife's car and it got me thinking. Let's say she's involved in a minor fender bender where the other driver is clearly at fault but that might not be obvious to law enforcement or insurance after the fact, based on where the damage is on each car, etc. However, the dashcam clearly captures the other driver running a stop sign or something of that nature. The problem I wonder about is that the dashcam in my wife's car also indicates speed so let's say that she was going 30mph in a 25mph zone. Would sharing that video solve the problem of who is at fault or would "they" say that had my wife been going 25mph, the accident would never have happened?

The truth is the truth. Can if be a liability? Sure, depends on who is at fault.

 

[BeerCan]

1. I think that’s for criminal cases, not civil or traffic infractions. Plus they would need to prove a reasonable person would expect litigation from the incident.
2. Dashcam footage is not normally preserved, unlike emails or text messages.
3. These cheap Chinese made dashcams are very prone to corrupting SD cards or for failing to record.
4. The SD cards are extremely small and very easy to misplace. I misplaced many of them, only to find some of them years later.
5. There is always an unfortunate boating incident

1. frcp == federal rules of civil procedure. Its reasonable to say that someone with a dashcam understands what they are used for
2. Is the whole point of a dashcam to record? So what are you saying here? It make no sense. Also every dashcam I ever owned preserves "incident" video automatically.
3. You could make that argument and the judge will likely not believe you. It would certainly sour a judges opinion of your stance.
4. Even worse argument because you have to eject the sd card from the device. Plus "I misplaced it" hardly ever works
5. guess I missed the reference.

 

[KrisZ]

1. frcp == federal rules of civil procedure. Its reasonable to say that someone with a dashcam understands what they are used for
2. Is the whole point of a dashcam to record? So what are you saying here? It make no sense. Also every dashcam I ever owned preserves "incident" video automatically.
3. You could make that argument and the judge will likely not believe you. It would certainly sour a judges opinion of your stance.
4. Even worse argument because you have to eject the sd card from the device. Plus "I misplaced it" hardly ever works
5. guess I missed the reference.

Unless the footage was subpoenaed, meaning the owner informed the other party or the police officer they have it, how would anyone know you recorded anything?

And once you’re standing in front of a judge, I’m sure it would be with a lawyer, so they would have advised about answering any dashcam footage questions well before that I would think.

Sheesh, you guys are acting like these things are constantly used to solve murders or something.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Oh dear. Show me a case where an insurance company forced an individual to provide dashcam footage. Or show me a case where they denied a claim because dashcam footage wasn't provided. If your "what ifs" were factual, an insurance company would be able to demand your smartphone as well to check if you weren't texting, for example. They need a court order for that. If the case is that serious, well that's an outlier and not the norm.


But even if I grant your position as factual, the positives far outweigh the rare circumstance you're so worried about. Well, unless you drive recklessly all the time, then a dashcam is certainly not recommended.

You think people who tried to pull one over on the insurer would publicly mention it?