Dashcam...Solve or create problems?

[2010Civic]

I have a dashcam. My plan is to "lose" the SD card if I'm at fault in an incident.

 

[KrisZ]

You'll submit whatever they subpoena.

Yeah, you're thinking criminal cases, not traffic infractions.

For any traffic violation, nobody is going to subpoena your footage. Most will edit the footage just to make it short and the file small enough to be emailed or uploaded. That's editing and tampering with footage right there.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

I don't have a GPS sensor on my dashcam for exactly this reason.

I also have audio recording turned off. I don't need to help someone else's case if they can hear I was cranking Pantera and going on endless four-letter rants about the other drivers I share the roads with around here.

I figure any footage I grab of someone else's fault ought to be good enough when it matters.

 

[goblin]

...That's editing and tampering with footage right there.

My guess is - not if you provide the full unedited footage separately and making clear the edit part you're providing is a sample for convenience.

 

[Lockasiam]

Deleted

 

[KrisZ]

My guess is - not if you provide the full unedited footage separately and making clear the edit part you're providing is a sample for convenience.

Let me guess, you're one of those people that "has nothing to hide", therefore think that the legal system will not go after you, because you're being nice and helpful.

 

[goblin]

And you must be one of those guessing people then ?

What did I describe wrong ? Was the "making clear" part in my post not made clear enough ?

If I submit footage and MAKE IT CLEAR - meaning I explicitly state that it is NOT the complete footage, but a sample edited for convenience, and that the complete unedited footage is also available for reference (which is what I said above) - how can I be held liable for tampering ?

 

[PandaBear]

Game theory here:

You are making the assumption that your wife has a dash cam but the other driver doesn't. Do you ever want to be in an uncertain situation where she doesn't have the dash cam but the other driver has? I would rather not.

 

[KrisZ]

And you must be one of those guessing people then ?

What did I describe wrong ? Was the "making clear" part in my post not made clear enough ?

If I submit footage and MAKE IT CLEAR - meaning I explicitly state that it is NOT the complete footage, but a sample edited for convenience, and that the complete unedited footage is also available for reference (which is what I said above) - how can I be held liable for tampering ?

Because they can and because you confessed you did it, that's why. They can question "convenience", they can question anything they wish. You do understand that different editing software can apply all sorts of filters, blur effects, file compressions etc, even if that was not your intention?
There is a reason most lawyers will tell you to never talk to cops, volunteer information or assist them in any manner, unless specifically compelled by a law.

 

[goblin]

I think we are speaking in different languages here...

What on earth are you talking about?

Have you read what I wrote at all ?

I submit the original, and a sample of the original, clearly stating which is which.

If they have an issue with tampering, or any edits I made - they will NOT accept/allow/whatever the edited document at all - which is fine, because the unedited one was provided as well. If they don't like the original, they are free not to accept it at all as admissible as well - so be it.

They can not however accuse me of tampering the original raw I provided them, what on earth are you talking about.

 

[KrisZ]

Why would you send them an edited copy then? Just send them the whole thing and let them dig through it, which i would abslolutley not do because of the reasons stated above about self-incrimination.
Isn't the whole point of sending a short version because the whole file is too large to send electronically?

 

[kebabaluba]

Well recording your own wrong doings and speeding might be used against you. 30 in 25 zone are a mere speeding ticket but in a big picture it might be something worse in a case of a major accident. Here in my country recorded speeding even if the accident are not your fault can count against you. So yes i agree that over sharing can lead to to a bit of a spank your own rear end. The idea behind dashcams are to protect you and expose the wrong party so don`t overdo it with info that could put you in a wrong light if you know what i mean...

 

[Jetronic]

I would rather have the evidence, and choose not to disclose, than to try and prove a point without evidence.

But this is a question for attorneys - and some attorneys recommend not having a dashcam - so, I would think it depends on your jurisdiction. What are you required to disclose? What can the police/courts subpoena?

The law in my place says you have to disclose dashcam footage immediately, and it's up to the judge if it's admissed as evidence or not.

If I have a dashcam, I better be within the law myself. But I try to always be.

 

[goblin]

Why would you send them an edited copy then?

Because I would feel like it ? And I said "provide", not specifically "send". I can provide it by courier, mail, carrier pigeon, or even ups If I feel adventurous. On digital media.

Just send them the whole thing and let them dig through it, which i would abslolutley not do because of the reasons stated above about self-incrimination.

You would have to do it if it's subpoenaed. In which case it will very likely include the specifics of what should be sent and how

Isn't the whole point of sending a short version because the whole file is too large to send electronically?

No. My point of providing a short version is "here's a 30 seconds sample of the before, during and after, to give context on the situation. It has been edited for length, contrast and brightness. The full raw footage, which includes the previous 3 hours of me playing a kazoo sitting on the engine hood, in a file format that can only be played on a Soviet Agat Apple II clone while a programmer enters complex Cobol code on a keyboardconsisting of a 0 key and a 1 key is also provided on the attached separate media".

 

[K-Man]

I'm wondering about the possibility that a judge in a civil trial in some states could rule against introduction of dashcam footage that would otherwise exonerate you. This has come up since the 1990s in workplaces in states that require both parties to consent to recording. The judges disallow personal recordings of events such as interactions with other employees. (The employer's recordings are exempt because of their existence being a condition of employment.) I could imagine those laws twisted to exclude private dashcams.

 

[Owen Lucas]

The law in my place says you have to disclose dashcam footage immediately, and it's up to the judge if it's admissed as evidence or not.

If I have a dashcam, I better be within the law myself. But I try to always be.

There's got to be some due process here, like a subpoena, warrant, or exigent circumstance. I don't think the gov't can compel you to submit evidence. You can't destroy the video but otherwise you have the 4th and 5th amendment behind you.

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?

In court, I think an attorney would be able to argue the inaccuracy of a GPS based speedometer on a dashcam. When was it last calibrated, if ever, and how? Is the communication between the GPS module and the program that updates it to the video file synchronized perfectly? Unless we are talking about 100mph in a 55 vs 28 in a 25, then the legal validity of a Chinesium dashcam GPS speedometer is questionable IMHO. Yes, an engineering firm can probably calculate the vehicles speed through an examination of the camera, FPS rate, and landmarks, but with that kind of scrutiny, you probably have other problems.

In the world of claims, of which I was an inside claims examiner who determined who was at fault in accidents many moons ago, we could take the GPS reading as gospel. An adjuster can indeed say 28mph in a 25 contributed to the accident. In states where contributory negligence is 1%, then the claims adjuster can use any reason to deny the whole claim. You were 3mph over or didn't honk, that makes you at least 1% at fault and your recovery is denied. In comparative negligence states, if the adjuster says 10%, then you recover 90%. There also isn't anything you can do to argue the ins. co's decision, it's their way and its agreed upon in the policy. You can provide more evidence, but what they say goes to CLUE (Claims Liability Underwriting Exchange) and on your record. If your filing through the adverse carrier, you either take it or sure them.

Despite this, all my vehicles have a front and rear dashcam activated on engine startup, no gps speedometer.

• Pure Contributory Negligence (1% Rule)- These states bar recovery if the plaintiff is even 1% at fault:
  • Alabama
  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • North Carolina
  • VirginiaUnder this rule, "a plaintiff found 10% at fault for causing an accident will recover nothing, even though the defendant is 90% at fault." Mwl-law
• Pure Comparative Negligence- These states allow recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault (with damages reduced by percentage of fault):
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Florida
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Washington

Here's a video of an accident I saw a few years back, enhanced and zoomed in. Poor box truck guy went on 2 wheels!

 

[IndyIan]

Because they can and because you confessed you did it, that's why. They can question "convenience", they can question anything they wish. You do understand that different editing software can apply all sorts of filters, blur effects, file compressions etc, even if that was not your intention?
There is a reason most lawyers will tell you to never talk to cops, volunteer information or assist them in any manner, unless specifically compelled by a law.

To generate business for the lawyers? At least in my area, the police are very professional and I've never had one even remotely aggressive, so full cooperation has never burned me, and probably has saved me lots of time, money, and a traffic charge or two. It's pretty easy to do given that I wasn't doing something too stupid at the time, but the cops knowing that I'm not hiding anything, just gets things solved right there and I think to my benefit. They give a warning, or gave me a day to present my insurance at the station, and everyone leaves happy with no extra time or money wasted in court or lawyers involved.
Now I guess if someone was doing a stupid pass and caused a serious accident where people were killed or injured, then lawyering up is a good plan, but for a fender bender or minor issue, I think its good to show you are a law abiding citizen, cooperating with nothing to hide, keeps both theirs and my life simple that day.

 

[Jetronic]

There's got to be some due process here, like a subpoena, warrant, or exigent circumstance. I don't think the gov't can compel you to submit evidence. You can't destroy the video but otherwise you have the 4th and 5th amendment behind you.


In court, I think an attorney would be able to argue the inaccuracy of a GPS based speedometer on a dashcam. When was it last calibrated, if ever, and how? Is the communication between the GPS module and the program that updates it to the video file synchronized perfectly? Unless we are talking about 100mph in a 55 vs 28 in a 25, then the legal validity of a Chinesium dashcam GPS speedometer is questionable IMHO. Yes, an engineering firm can probably calculate the vehicles speed through an examination of the camera, FPS rate, and landmarks, but with that kind of scrutiny, you probably have other problems.

In the world of claims, of which I was an inside claims examiner who determined who was at fault in accidents many moons ago, we could take the GPS reading as gospel. An adjuster can indeed say 28mph in a 25 contributed to the accident. In states where contributory negligence is 1%, then the claims adjuster can use any reason to deny the whole claim. You were 3mph over or didn't honk, that makes you at least 1% at fault and your recovery is denied. In comparative negligence states, if the adjuster says 10%, then you recover 90%. There also isn't anything you can do to argue the ins. co's decision, it's their way and its agreed upon in the policy. You can provide more evidence, but what they say goes to CLUE (Claims Liability Underwriting Exchange) and on your record. If your filing through the adverse carrier, you either take it or sure them.

Despite this, all my vehicles have a front and rear dashcam activated on engine startup, no gps speedometer.

• Pure Contributory Negligence (1% Rule)- These states bar recovery if the plaintiff is even 1% at fault:
  • Alabama
  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • North Carolina
  • VirginiaUnder this rule, "a plaintiff found 10% at fault for causing an accident will recover nothing, even though the defendant is 90% at fault." Mwl-law
• Pure Comparative Negligence- These states allow recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault (with damages reduced by percentage of fault):
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Florida
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Washington

Here's a video of an accident I saw a few years back, enhanced and zoomed in. Poor box truck guy went on 2 wheels!

Npt a single US law applies to any place outside of the US.

 

[Owen Lucas]

I presumed you were in the US. Still, helpful to OP.

 

[KYMISTWALKER]

Your post is ridiculous, I think everyone should have a dash cam