Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogma1138 | Hacker News Reader

Cool project, although I would not advise using dashcams if you are involved in an accident the police can subpoena the footage which could potentially be used against you (in both criminal and civil suits).

If you do run a dashcam I would suggest having one that does not record audio and only keeps the last 5-10min of footage on record because GL explaining to the cops why you have been driving like a jackass just before the accident even if it had nothing to do with it.

View on HN

> why you have been driving like a jackass

Or just don't drive like a jackass. It's a serious business, take it seriously.

Some people keep records because they honestly believe they are doing things properly and want to be able to prove it.

Conversely, if you're a responsible driver then it prove that you are in the right.

Right. It's no accident (badum-psh!) that Russia and China are full of expensive cars with dashcams. Or even just regular cars with dashcams. The benefits far outweigh the penalties for the vast majority of dashcam users.

Dashcams in Russia are used because there is a huge problem with insurance fraud people would just either get hit intentionally or even jump on the hood of standing cars and claim they were hit.

The police and the legal system in Russia wouldn't care about your dashcam if you want to get out a of a jam a bribe would work just fine (I've been pulled over in plenty of places where I had to pay dues, mostly Asia - Thailand, Philippines, Burma but it's not that uncommon in Russia and some Balkan states either), insurance companies on the other hand do like them very much.

I am really wondering why you are pushing so hard against dashcams. Dashcams (along with bodycams) are making corruption in the justice system much harder to pull off. You can find a ton of videos on YouTube exposing corruption in law enforcement around the world, including the United States. This is not mass surveillance! This is a personal record of travel that isn't vacuumed up into the warrantless surveillance machine and twisted to serve an evil purpose (like Verizon's call record database, among many others). Your argument -- that your video could be subpoenaed and you might have to explain why you were driving like a jackass -- is weak to the point that I am beginning to suspect an ulterior motive. Why are you pushing so hard against dashcams?

Nothing wrong with having a camera to record when you are being pulled over, having a device that constantly records everything and is pretty much turned on by default is disadvantageous to both your privacy and your interests.

I've also said that I personally would recommend a dash cam which records the last 5 min and no audio, this should be enough as a deterrent and will allow you to provide any evidence if required while not keeping anything on the record that could damage you.

And please do not compare dashcams to bodycams, because ?I'm pretty sure you would not want to live in a world where everyone is wearing a bodycam that is recording 24/7, or even suggest people to walk on the street while recording everything with their phones.

When you make a record of anything you should be aware that what ever you document can be used against you, or against another party at any time and that your agency to maintain the privacy of that record is limited both from a legal and practical point of view.

Uhm. Bodycams -- specifically that term, "bodycams" -- have exactly one context right now, and that's the context in which law enforcement wears them while on duty. And I do think that bodycams are a great thing that should be required as part of being a law enforcement officer on duty.

You still haven't explained yourself beyond the same old "what you record can be used against you" argument, which as I've said before, is weak. I think this will be my last reply, since there is absolutely nothing being gained here in this discussion.

The simple argument is that if you were involved in an accident with a dashboard camera it can be used against you, if you tamper with it after you are stepping into the territory of spoliation of evidence.

Ask any lawyer and they'll give you a golden rule - do not create records that might be used against you unless you are compelled to do so.

If you have a dashboard camera then know the risks and mitigate them as I've mentioned before having a camera that overrides it's footage after a short period is good enough simply because you then need to perform a deliberate act to save that footage this reduces the liability that a dashboard camera can present in cases where it might have recorded something you might not want to become public.

Furthermore dashboard cameras that do not record sound in the cabin are also preferable because the last thing you want is you on record being distracted by arguing with a passenger or switching radio station or bad mouthing some driver that cut you off and those things are considerably more common than people think.

A dashcam that overwrites footage in a short period may be of no use if you're unable to stop the recording because you've been injured in an accident.

And anyway, if I'm at fault and that is recorded on the camera then that is okay with me. The camera will at least give an indisputable account of the events it recorded, whereas our human memories can be ... inaccurate.

I haven't met a single person who doesn't go above the speed limit (to a reasonable amount) or misses a give way or stop sign once in a while.

Well, if you're at fault, then fess up. If your are more responsible than most, then statistically, a dash cam will be on your side. And judging from this thread, that shouldn't be too hard.

Speed, okay... and sometimes it's safer going faster than the posted limit (IE with the flow of traffic). However, if you're missing stop signs, you're definitely doing something wrong - either driving too fast or not paying attention.

> However, if you're missing stop signs, you're definitely doing something wrong - either driving too fast or not paying attention.

Lots of people will slow down significantly (say to <10mph), but not stop completely, if no one seems to be there.

Sounds different from "missing" stop signs. Sadly, I see people come to rolling stops at most stop signs... so much so that it makes me feel like I'm the only one wasting my time doing it right.

It's one of the many things that make me wild about the idea of letting computers do the driving. Zipper-merging, slowing to time lights instead of stopping, and no rubbernecking are wonders of the future I can't wait to enjoy.

You might not be doing it 'right'. Most stop signs just mean slow down. If there is no traffic, you should not come to a full stop.

No, that's a yield sign.

In what country or state? In California they definitely mean you must make a full stop. Also people seem to have forgotten any of the rules of priority at stop lights. (Straight and right always come before left. Right on red is below everything else.)

> In California they definitely mean you must make a full stop.

I guess they couldn't call it a "California stop" / "California roll" if that wasn't the law.

> "Most stop signs just mean slow down."

Which must be why "stop means STOP!!!" was repeated very forcefully by the driving instructor and the friendly police officer multiple times during my driving course.

You'll be surprised just how many traffic infraction every driver is doing every day.

We all had that case where a stop sign that was hidden behind a tree (not everyone lives in the US where they paint them on the road ;)) or misses the school/children crossing sign or any other temporary sign that was put there due to works or w/e.

I cannot imagine paying so little attention you miss stop signs, even those behind trees. If I am driving and come to an intersection and I don't see a stop sign and there is a tree where the stop sign usually would be you better believe I'm looking for that post in the ground to make sure there really isn't a stop sign. Then if I don't see one I look at the cross intersection to make sure THEY have the stop sign.

No. People don't just miss stop signs. If you're missing stop signs slow way the hell down and pay attention.

A 'Stop' sign means you must come to a complete stop before proceeding.

Or rather: a 'Stop' sign means you must come to a complete stop before proceeding or risk being fined if you are caught.

It is possible to come to a complete stop before proceeding and still cause an accident by failing to give way. Contrariwise, it is possible to proceed through a 'Stop' sign in a safe manner without coming to a complete stop.

In Australia I'm aware of a few intersections with traffic lights that are signed 'Left Turn on Red Permitted After Stopping'[1], which is proof that, at least some of us, are capable of acting like adults, and experienced drivers, and disregard the light / sign when it is safe to do so.

Rules hey. I know one local outdoor swimming pool that is signed 'No balls'. No balls in an outdoor swimming pool? It makes me want to drive through the stop signs.

Australian roads have some pretty whacky speed limit signs, things like: 60 50 40 30 20 80 70 100 School Zone 70 40 30 25.[2]

1. http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handbook/t...

2. as Australian comedian Steve Hughes points out in his act 'While It's Still Legal', see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohogzxiqqkM#t=45m47 (Caution swearing).

I don't understand your point. Follow the rules of the road, it's not that hard. If the rules allow left turn on red that'd great. That's different than not obeying other traffic signs.

How long does it take for them to subpoena you? That is if I were in an accident, and they don't physically confiscate the memory drive, could you extract any video that supports your case and delete the rest before they request it?

I figure this happens with police dashcams and bodycams all the time.

If the police is on the scene they don't even need a subpoena they can search the car and confiscate the memory card.

If you destroy the contents of the card it doesn't look good, that fact can be brought up against you (tampering with a car that was involved in an accident especially one with casualties could potentially be a crime on it's own).

If you present only the snippets that support your case the other party will petition the court to for you to present the unedited video if you cannot the entire thing will most likely be thrown out (the other side might be able to present the fact that you have attempted to present an edited video and have discarded the raw footage which will likely not fair well with a jury).

Not to mention that having the video it self could put you at risk of perjury or being found in contempt if you try to do anything after the fact.

They need probable cause to do that in most places. Also, there's nothing stopping you from quickly dismounting it before you pull over and shoving it under the seat, saying you don't have it if asked what the dangling wire is, and refuse to consent to a search if the officer doesn't believe you. If your car is forcibly searched anyway, it will almost surely be inadmissible, and might even help your whole charge get thrown out.

I was pretty clear that I am referencing only cases when a vehicular accident has occurred in that case they have all the probable cause they need.

BTW if the officer doesn't believe you it could lead to a probable cause, please do not base your strategy on having to give a false statement to a law enforcement agent.

A police officer cannot search your car under the presumption that you might be lying about something that might connect to a dash cam that might have been installed and running at the time of the accident that you might erase if he lets you go. Unless someone's died at the scene or was seriously injured or your appear to be engaging in some illicit activity like driving stoned, it's a pretty tenuous defense against your 4th amendment rights first to search your car, then seize your property. Not to mention the complications of the right not to incriminate yourself.

Simply being involved in an accident is not probable cause for a search of your vehicle.

"...in emergency situations which threaten public safety or the loss of evidence."

Which gives a police officer the cause they need to search the car if they believe there has been a documentation of the accident and you do not come forth when questioned.

Beyond that if an investigative officer has been called to the scene of a car accident they do have the right to search all vehicles involved.

In fact they have several rights beyond that including towing your car to the police impound and doing what ever they need to it, in any accidents in which there were casualties it's standard procedure as the car will be checked mechanically by the police.

Interesting!

I suppose given the DIY nature of this project you could trivially have it record in a 15minute loop or something to limit how much you share.

Wouldn't that be destruction of evidence? I don't think you're allowed to destroy things if you anticipate a subpoena.

"What dashcam, Officer? Oh, that? It hasn't worked for weeks."

Lying to a police officer is a crime in most jurisdictions, it's called making a false statement.

But the officer can't search the vehicle because of that. And if he does, you can most likely get your whole case tossed out for a search without probable cause.

Probable cause is a tricky issue, if the police officer thinks you are hiding something they can claim probable cause and if they actually find what they were looking for their cause has just been validated.

But this is irrelevant because i was specifically talking about accident when they do not need cause to search your car.

Only if you're making an actual report, going under oath. An instance of lying about a dash-cam won't get you in trouble.

This is absolutely and completely not true. Please do not do this. All statements to an officer at any time are evidence.

Is there well documented cases of this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com