76 replies to this topic

[Mathrin]

My sister had someone run in the back of her a few months ago. If it wasn't for a couple of witnesses stopping, I'm sure the guy would have tried arguing it (though, how far can your argument go if you've run into someone from behind at a junction?) But those witnesses won't always be there, or be willing to stop.

Your argument doesn't go anywhere. It's a fault claim and that's that!

[Stoney871]

If you run into the back of someone then it's a foregone conclusion unless the car is faulty or the front driver is carrying out an illegal or dangerous action/manouveure.

[2011fiesta]

Really interesting topic Paul - I never considered the need for a camera but those videos have really made me think about getting one!

Pay day is Friday - think my car is going to have some money spent on it

Thanks James You should get one, if not for evidence then just for a new little toy lol.

I need a roof mouted one that looks down into cars in the next lane so I can capture drivers texting. (As I mentioned on Twitter this afternoon I must of noticed about 6 people using phones while driving while I was sat on the bus on the way home - really infuriates me)
They should watch this video - possible results of texting

[iNath]

My sister had someone run in the back of her a few months ago. If it wasn't for a couple of witnesses stopping, I'm sure the guy would have tried arguing it (though, how far can your argument go if you've run into someone from behind at a junction?) But those witnesses won't always be there, or be willing to stop.

Exactly - in 99*% of insurance claims the person driving in the back will be assumed 'at fault' because they didn't leave enough braking distance.
You only really need a forward facing camera to prove someone cut you up/deliberately slammed the brakes on to cause an accident.


*I may have made up this statistic.

[Mathrin]

Fun fact - the get out clause of a hit in the rear is thus. Unless the vehicle in front is full of people and an old vehicle (I'm talking 10+ years), you're down for it.

there are additional points I could make regarding it, but I don't want to be labeled as something I'm not, even if it IS 90% of the people who perform this kind of fraud.

[jimrex]

Don't get me wrong, I realise that if you run into the back of someone, it's your problem... I just reckon the little toe rag would have made her believe she was in the wrong if it was just the two of them at the side of the road (he would have done anything to wriggle out of it as it took him about 3 weeks to contact his insurance company).

A camera would leave all parties in no doubt, and that surely makes it well worth the money

(As I mentioned on Twitter this afternoon I must of noticed about 6 people using phones while driving while I was sat on the bus on the way home - really infuriates me)

And I accept my telling off over Twitter from you Paul! Won't do it again

[2011fiesta]

And I accept my telling off over Twitter from you Paul! Won't do it again

Glad to hear it mate, thank you :-)

[BrownMotoring]

Really interesting topic Paul - I never considered the need for a camera but those videos have really made me think about getting one!

My sister had someone run in the back of her a few months ago. If it wasn't for a couple of witnesses stopping, I'm sure the guy would have tried arguing it (though, how far can your argument go if you've run into someone from behind at a junction?) But those witnesses won't always be there, or be willing to stop.

I guess it's also helpful if you aren't involved in an incident but manage to capture something that might be of use to the police.

Pay day is Friday - think my car is going to have some money spent on it

Good point when it comes to gathering indisputable evidence. You'd have thought it was clear cut but it doesn't always work that way it seems. When someone kindly hit the back of my car in April my insurer took the stance that I was in theory equally responsible until they could establish fault. Fair enough and establishing fault appears to ultimately mean a verbal or written admission from the other person and/or their insurer.

You can't always now assume it's the other parties fault if they hit the back of your car, and insurance company's certainly like to make that known to the customer/claimant now. My insurer is a major one and they suspended my excess and no claims etc and spent plenty of time explaining how I'd suffer if they couldn't establish fault elsewhere. In my case getting that admission out of the numpty who hit me and his insurer wasn't straight forward. I ended up doing most of the leg work over four months after the incident and even the Police got involved. However, the footage and information from the camera, photo's, diagrams and notes I wrote down after I believe saved the whole thing going pear shaped. The camera is just one part of it that certainly helped.

However, I would also say don't assume. Take a view that you need to build a case and evidence strong enough to argue it soundly regardless of type of incident and don't assume it'll all be settle quickly and without issue Don't leave you insurer entirely to their own devices, keep tabs on the claim/process.

Another example or two - One of my colleagues was rear ended this year in his Mini and after what appeared to be a clear cut case the other party decided that no, they weren't actually present. Not a clever move as my colleague submitted video and stills footage that was geotagged, date and time stamped along with his claim. It's conclusive and my colleagues insurer agrees. However they never bothered to keep my colleague posted on the latest twist and he only found out by chance after I prompted him to keep tabs on his claim, at which things were starting to get out of control.

Likewise my father had a minor incident recently. It turns out incidents where both parties are reversing are almost always assumed to be 50/50 blame. In my father's case a careless neighbour reversed into the side of his car. Both were reversing but my father was not at fault and had nowhere to go or means of avoiding it. The neighbour held his hands up and said my fault too. A camera may well have helped but it took more effort to convince my father's insurer to look over it again properly, at which point they agreed and went for a 100% claim against the neighbour. Again, if it wasn't for keeping tabs on the process the whole thing would have been unfairly viewed as 50/50 or gone south even further.

The camera I fitted is one of the best buy I've made this year. It's peace of mind and in some cases those I might film around me - my own little extra insurance policy. I'm a sensible'ish chap in my 30's, never had any points or brushes with the law and love my cars and Fes. Folks can crash into me (I'd prefer not), drive and behave in a dangerous or threatening manner. It's up to them, I don't mind as much now as it's on camera. Recommended addition to any car. I also read recently one or two insurers are now offering discounts if you have a camera. Perhaps all cars should be fitted with them but that's a duscission for another day.

[Stoney871]

My work car has cameras all over it and are checked weekly for time/date accuracy and condition and all footage is certified as admissable as evidence in court.
(Then again the system in my car costs a couple of thousand and is very specialised kit)

[Narth]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this - but if you have an on-window phone mount, why not something like this?

http://itunes.apple....d437813388?mt=8

(Probably something similar for android users too)

Records as you go, delete as required.

[BrownMotoring]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this - but if you have an on-window phone mount, why not something like this?

http://itunes.apple....d437813388?mt=8

(Probably something similar for android users too)

Records as you go, delete as required.

I've used the same app and it's not bad. Perhaps not particularly intuitive but works well enough. Only thing I didn't like is that it wouldnt run when the phone was in standby/blank screen. I don't tend to plug in and charge all the time when driving so it emptied the battery having the screen on. It was also a bit of a distraction soemtimes. It may have changed in more recent versions but it also stopped recording when someone called and I switched to phone, or any other app for that matter. The information it gathered was first rate and you avoid cabling etc. Tried, tested, thought it wasn't bad at all but opted for a little DVR camera anyway.

[volts]

That 1st video of this topic. The bloke driving the car with the dashcam. While i commend his actions he must of had luck to actually catch up with her although i have to say he came across to me as having more brawn than brains epescially when it came to actually stopping the woamn from going any futher.

All the videos are good case for having such devices fitted. Do insurance companies recognise such things when it comes to premiums etc

[2011fiesta]

That 1st video of this topic. The bloke driving the car with the dashcam. While i commend his actions he must of had luck to actually catch up with her although i have to say he came across to me as having more brawn than brains epescially when it came to actually stopping the woamn from going any futher.

I reckon witnessing someone hitting a helpless pedestrian like that then seeing them having the audacity to speed of recklessly, you'd be so disgusted adrenaline might take over.

[ChrissH]

Sorry to bring up an old thread.. but does anyone know how many hours a 16GB Micro SD Card will hold in terms of recording? I know it'll depend on the quality and file format, but if I brought the same on as iNath, how long would that last?

Cheers,
Chris

[iNath]

About 6-8 hours worth