Motorists are using video cams to avoid disputed accident claims
economist.com
economist.com
I worry less about people in front of me doing idiotic things now. I know that even if there's an accident, I'll have proof that I (hopefully) wasn't to blame.
The BlackVue models have GPS, which is nice because it provides a speed readout overlaid on the video. They also have WiFi (mostly useless IMO) and run Linux, which means there are a few interesting hacks for them.
Two often-overlooked things to look for are:
* A capacitor for power-off storage (this is what keeps the camera on while the video is finalized and buffers flushed) instead of a LiPo, which is ill-suited to use in a hot, sunny area like the windshield.
* A discrete design without flashy chrome bits and blinky lights everywhere. The last think you want is someone breaking in and stealing your dashcam itself.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%2...
Here's a list of vehicles supported by one consultant's forensics software:
http://smile.amazon.com/Transcend-DrivePro-Recorder-Suction-...
I went all the way and hardwired it into the overhead console also, so it comes on/off with the car and there's no wire to attract attention :)
Basically, in the event of an accident that is serious, both black boxes from each vehicle can be submitted to ...somebody, and the the account of what happened will be recorded in perfect detail. This would probably be able to settle fault in a high percentage of cases.
Now for the case of people jumping out in front of vehicles like they do in Russia...many vehicles will have cameras and lasers on board which will be used both as safety features (automatic collision avoidance) and autonomous driving. Every bit of data from these will also be recorded.
There will come a point in the future, (< 10 years), where most vehicles on the road will have all of these features and disputed accident claims, fraud, people suing the driver after they intentionally jump in front of a vehicle, will all be the past. Data storage is cheap.
It will also change all statistics about insurance and driving. New models will come about, including the insurance per mile, etc. And How much of the time is spent under fully autonomous driving versus driving yourself. If you are fully autonomous on most streets all the time, I can imagine a very low insurance premium.
2016 vehicles are already shipping either as options or as standard in some trims, safety features which can detect obstructions and take automated action (collision avoidance systems). Some are aimed only at detecting other vehicles ahead, but some are specifically designed to detect and avoid pedestrians/cyclists.
These systems utilise lasers and cameras. They aren't currently being used as a black box but it is practically turn-key, no additional hardware would be required except maybe an SD card and encoder to add a built in car-cam.
I agree that it may take ten years for this stuff to become standard in all new cars, but in the next two or three years if someone wants this in their new car they may very well be able to buy it.
Toyota are adding many of these features to their 2016 cars as a $500 option (lane departure, collision avoidance, etc) on all trims as far as I know.
Seriously, the Russians have been doing this for years, for more or less the same reasons.
This all suggests that the rule of law is tenuous and getting more so in the west.
People would literally jump in front of your car (usually in more or less a safe manner) even if it was in the middle of a red light slam on your hood and pretend that you hit them.
Then they will either threaten to sue and try to extort you or if you are dumb enough to get out under the wrong circumstances simply rob you.
But having a front and even back facing cameras isn't a bad idea, it makes insurance claims much easier - GL explaining that the idiot backed out into you and you didn't rear end them.
Wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies would start giving discounts on premiums for drivers with camera setup, and in a few years mandate a tamper proof always on camera for you to actually get insurance.
I'm all for using dashcams, but the data should not leave the vehicle unless the owner intends it to (or a warrant is issued).
As for the data not leaving the dashcam it won't at first because internet connectivity is still spotty and expensive, eventually it will probably stream it live to you insurer which will perform some analysis on it to see how you drive in order to define your premiums, so if you speed you get to pay more. It won't surprise me if insurers don't already have access to some telemetry from cars (e.g. the one which is downloaded during routine checkups) that can be used to extrapolate your driving behavior for example how often you break suddenly/emergency break, most modern cars come with accelerometers today to ensure that air-bags deploy properly even when the is hit from the rear or the side that data is probably stored in the control box.
http://www.amazon.com/Spy-Gear-Panosphere-360-Degree-Cam/dp/...
I have two of them and while the native recording is very fish-eye, the software that comes with the unit functions fine in focusing on a specific point.
With a 32 GB card and full charge, I think I've gotten about 45 minutes of recording. Might not be good for daily use, but for recreational outings it might be usable with some customization (e.g. super glue a mount to it). I've got one mounted on a swivel clip from a clip-on guitar tuner that broke and it's been a neat tool.
Edit: Example footage of using the camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBpEGw3tTZ8
Unfortunately after about 2 years the plug on my XD1080 stopped working so I can't reliably charge it :/ I'll probably replace it with the Prime X when my budget allows.
Lower profile than strapping a GoPro to your head and cheaper too.
- the car did not yield in a crossing though it had a "yield" triangle
- the cyclist had to break hard and went over the bar; the car drove away
- cyclist made a crime report at police and gave video as evidence
- car driver was fined for negligence
Any physical evidence can be accessed through a search warrant, and in some cases if it's on your person (e.g. cell phones) without it.
Not sure what's the case of a car, but as far as i know if the car is impounded everything in it is admissible evidence.
If the car wasn't impounded then the court can order you to produce the recorded footage as evidence, if you refuse then you can be charged with contempt of court, and technically put in jail indefinitely until you comply.
Seems like a ton of options available. Some expensive and some not. Many features to consider like storage limits, power source, integrated rear-view cams, etc.
The most common close call I have in my truck is slowing down to stop in a right or left turn lane and having someone cut me off to get in the lane while I'm stopping. I've only ever seen close calls but if more than one or two people do that when pulling up to one turn then it's gonna be hard for everyone to have enough space to come to a stop without rear ending someone.
When driving my 90s compact (not my DD) in traffic I've had two very close calls where people blast through one lane of dense traffic in order to pull out onto the road and cut me off (I assume because they don't see me). Both times I went jumping over curbs to avoid T-boning or rear-ending them.
It has front and back cameras, but I only use the front one as I'm too lazy to wire it in and assume 99% of likely trouble is at the front of the vehicle (yes, people can rear-end you, but in my country that person is almost automatically in the wrong).
The reasons: It's very cheap, and has worked fine for about 6 months. It does however have an absolutely terrible user interface. The more general reason why I use a dashcam is to avoid he-said-she-said arguments about who caused an accident.