|
Sadly it might just not be reliable, which isn't a great quality in a dash cam. I remember two+ years ago when I was looking the A118 was being made by multiple manufacturers with roughly similar processors and image sensors but widely ranging quality control. I'd be suspicious for at least the first month, make sure it's recording at least once a week, etc.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Grmbl - last week I drove over San Bernardino and idiots like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwyGW27nbuU were around. If you can't make a turn on your side of the road, take the loving tunnel!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Warthog posted:Grmbl - last week I drove over San Bernardino and idiots like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwyGW27nbuU were around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Warthog posted:Grmbl - last week I drove over San Bernardino and idiots like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwyGW27nbuU were around. That San Bernardino is way better than the San Bernardino by me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
The Viofo A119 I ordered from Zapals finally arrived, literally 29 days after I ordered it. Part of me wants to place it on the dashboard of my Prius so I don't have to run a long rear end USB cable across the ceiling, down the A pillar, then across the dash. Are there any drawbacks to this layout?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:The Viofo A119 I ordered from Zapals finally arrived, literally 29 days after I ordered it. Yes, the angle of view is not as good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
spog posted:Yes, the angle of view is not as good.  It has GPS options of off, location, and location and speed. I know we generally don't want speed since everyone speeds, but is there anything wrong with enabling location? edit: The GPS coordinates are literally imprinted on the bottom of the video similar to time, so I guess that should be okay. Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Enabling location gets you nothing (I doubt the location of the crash or whatever is going to be in dispute) and lets you infer speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
I do not believe that a GPS readout of 61 in a 60 zone would make your insurance find you at fault or void a claim. our national design rules dictate that all car speeds be accurate to within 10%+- and most if not all manufacturers make their speedo read under by at least 3-5km/h so you should never been a bees-dick over the speed limit unless you are actually speeding beyond a reasonable about. cops usually apply a + 10% rule around here unless you are asking for trouble and I cant imagine them bothering to grab your dashcam footage when 99% of the time its your word against theirs in a court of law and they have the knowledge and training on how to a) get you to confess on their chest cam/microphone to the offence b) identify and execute an open-close infringement case. basically you arent going to submit your footage to the insurance company unless you know for sure you werent the at fault driver, and if a cop wants to bust you for speeding they dont need your self-incriminating evidence to do it as they already have everything to nail you before you've been pulled over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
You may not realize how litigious our society is in the US. It's all about limiting the tools the opposing party can attack you with. Let's say you're running a cam and proceed through a yellow light, but you T-bone somebody from the oncoming lane who had turned directly in front of you. You produce the dashcam video to prove that you had a yellow light and the other party was in the wrong. The person you'd T-boned had 2 small children in the car unbelted, one sitting in the front seat. One of them died at the scene and the other is in the hospital racking up a 6-figure bill. Not likely but not impossible. The family of the person you'd T-boned decides to sue you for all you're worth, claiming reckless driving, regardless that their driver was responsible. Their key piece of evidence? The dashcam video you'd submitted showing that you'd been going 4mph over the limit before braking to avoid the collision.. you'd goosed the throttle a bit to duck under the yellow light before it turned red. Again not likely, but not impossible. Disabling the GPS readout is a small thing you can do to avoid this nightmare. Will it happen? Probably not. But you're ostensibly running a camera to protect yourself legally after being involved in an accident, you may as well go one step further if you're able.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I do not believe that a GPS readout of 61 in a 60 zone would make your insurance find you at fault or void a claim. our national design rules dictate that all car speeds be accurate to within 10%+- and most if not all manufacturers make their speedo read under by at least 3-5km/h so you should never been a bees-dick over the speed limit unless you are actually speeding beyond a reasonable about. Depends on the case. If you get hit by someone who cuts you off, your 10mph over could get you a percentage fault (and increased rates) over a video with no speed that shows the same thing. Without the video, however, you might be found 100% at fault for rear ending a dude. I would strongly prefer a camera without GPS at all. Turning speed off also hurts you if so equipped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
He's also not making sense for Australia. You don't want gps/speed on your dashcam. Why the hell would you? ever? for what possible reason? How could it ever benefit you? If not at fault for a crash you are willingly fitting a "black box" to you vehicle for examination. If you like to know gps/speed/location things in real time get a separate satnav or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
The only reason I want GPS coordinates is to track routing during road trips. Guess I could leave it off for everyday commuting. Not really sure what I would even do with that road trip data though. Make a pretty map overlay to post to Facebook?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of is that GPS coordinates prove that what you recorded was at a specific location, so in the event your recording didn't capture a license plate, a defendant in a case couldn't successfully claim that it was some other similar car you recorded and not them, like if you were on a long boring road that looks the same along its whole stretch? The circumstances would have to be pretty particular for that to matter, though, and I think the risk of self-incriminating data is higher. Unless you drive like a saint and never ever break the speed limit under any circumstances, ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Dick Danger, MotoVlogger chases down a hit and run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjsdQxINryQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Bogatyr posted:Dick Danger, MotoVlogger chases down a hit and run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Quite the video. I'm rather on the fence about pursuing fleeing drivers (especially by civilians). The argument against is that the pursuit itself can escalate the danger posed by the fleeing individual and that, so long as someone caught a plate number, the police can follow up belatedly at the owner's listed residence and/or put out an alert. On the other hand, if the driver has already caused damage and appears likely to be a clear and present danger to themselves and others, it would be irresponsible for law enforcement not to pursue. I think back to that dashcam footage from Chicago where a trashy car runs a red straight into a cop and just drives away without the slightest pursuit after the cop flashes his lights—if the driver's already hit somebody and makes the choice to run from the cop, they're probably a huge danger to every single individual they come across that night. I'm fine with following hit and run drivers or dui drivers while talking to 911, as long as it remains safe. In the video the only place I would really question was when he ran a couple of reds to keep up. That's the point where I would have given it up personally, but luckily he didn't have any issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Quite the video. I'm rather on the fence about pursuing fleeing drivers (especially by civilians). The argument against is that the pursuit itself can escalate the danger posed by the fleeing individual and that, so long as someone caught a plate number, the police can follow up belatedly at the owner's listed residence and/or put out an alert. On the other hand, if the driver has already caused damage and appears likely to be a clear and present danger to themselves and others, it would be irresponsible for law enforcement not to pursue. I think back to that dashcam footage from Chicago where a trashy car runs a red straight into a cop and just drives away without the slightest pursuit after the cop flashes his lights—if the driver's already hit somebody and makes the choice to run from the cop, they're probably a huge danger to every single individual they come across that night. Yeah, I am inclined to draw the line at the pursuer running red lights. Keeping eyes on a hit and runner isn't inherently a bad idea. I guess real time this was something like 20 minutes. CHP(and at least 2 other jurisdictions)/911 wasn't all that successful at catching up to this pursuit despite having turn by turn directions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
On a positive note I was safe from German snipers this lunchtime, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXgELcXY-bc
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
^^^^ Serpentine Baconroll, serpentine!! In the eternal struggle between green arrows and red lights, who will be victorious? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ynT1aG6GkI Takes No Damage fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
That's a weird intersection, I've never seen one where left-turners are not guided into the leftmost lanes of the road they're turning into. With that said, fuckstick turning right could've easily done that as long as they actually planned to stay in their lane instead of running into yours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
It may be hard to see but there is a dotted line following the turn, so inside turn lane goes into lanes 1-2 and middle turn lane goes to 3-4. I always learned you treat turning right on red as a stop sign so they still should have yielded to oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I'm agreeing with you - right on red guy should've waited until you were past either way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Ain't even mad, that intersection is a piece of poo poo in general. Go back and check how long my green light lasted. It's like that for cross traffic EVERY TIME
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Greater Vancouver Crash compilation a little old but if you want to see cars crashing into each other look no further!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:Ain't even mad, that intersection is a piece of poo poo in general. Go back and check how long my green light lasted. It's like that for cross traffic EVERY TIME That light is a giant gently caress you to anyone trying to go north. Southbound isn't quite as bad, but still annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
I assume the reason for wanting to "hide" your dashcam is so thieves aren't enticed to break into your car to steal it. However, if I mount mine as high up as possible on the windshield, the black dots from the third visor pepper the top half of the visible area. But if I move it down the windshield an inch or so, the front part of the lens isn't hidden by the black dots when looking at the car from the outside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Enabling location gets you nothing (I doubt the location of the crash or whatever is going to be in dispute) and lets you infer speed. Yeah but unless you are driving in a featureless void, speed can be inferred with greater accuracy from the video alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah but unless you are driving in a featureless void, speed can be inferred with greater accuracy from the video alone. That requires hiring an expert and investigator and will only get you a 10 +/- mph at best. That's only gonna happen on high dollar cases. It is a four figure bill to do it in a way that is admissable in any court, which they're not gonna pay for your $5k claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
nm posted:That requires hiring an expert and investigator and will only get you a 10 +/- mph at best. That's only gonna happen on high dollar cases. It is a four figure bill to do it in a way that is admissable in any court, which they're not gonna pay for your $5k claim. If you have a GPS overlay however, you now have the most accurate source of timing and positioning available to the average person putting the numbers on screen in plain view of anyone with two brain cells bumping in to each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Exactly. It'd be really easy for a nerd with video editing software and a few reference measurements to determine your speed from video in a way which would be convincing to other nerdy people who understand the principles involved, but convincing a jury is a different matter. If you aren't recording audio there's even potential to create doubt about the accuracy of the camera's claimed framerate. GPS speed can be inaccurate too, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if juries could be instructed to ignore GPS speed in a recording.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
EightBit posted:GPS speed can be inaccurate too, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if juries could be instructed to ignore GPS speed in a recording. The problem is: juries don't decide these sorts of things very much. It's usually insurance companies, who don't have to follow any logical set of rules. I've seen several instances of the insurance company willfully ignoring obvious dashcam footage of what happened when assigning fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
EightBit posted:GPS speed can be inaccurate too, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if juries could be instructed to ignore GPS speed in a recording. The insurance company will use that gps speed to determine whether or not they want to fight you on it. They're not going to hire some expert to determine if you were doing 35 in a 30 for your average case. I'm just a lawyer who's worked on these cases from the criminal end, so what do I know? Buy all the gps enabled cameras you want, but don't say I didn't warn you. I'm not buying them, even if I disable the speed sensor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Are GPS cameras where the camera need a separate module plugged in to enable GPS included?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:Are GPS cameras where the camera need a separate module plugged in to enable GPS included? The reason you don't want to have a GPS-equipped camera is to avoid the question "why was GPS turned off?" If it's a separate module that requires extra mounting/wiring and/or if it costs extra I'd say that gives you a nice answer which can't be used against you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Not that I'm in the US or subject to the craziness of laws there, but I figured that if it works in US litigation mania, it'll work everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
nm posted:That requires hiring an expert and investigator and will only get you a 10 +/- mph at best. That's only gonna happen on high dollar cases. It is a four figure bill to do it in a way that is admissable in any court, which they're not gonna pay for your $5k claim. Isn’t an expert witness also required to testify about the coordinate stamps? wolrah posted:Exactly. It'd be really easy for a nerd with video editing software and a few reference measurements to determine your speed from video in a way which would be convincing to other nerdy people who understand the principles involved, but convincing a jury is a different matter. If you aren't recording audio there's even potential to create doubt about the accuracy of the camera's claimed framerate. Okay but if any idiot can plot two points on Google Maps and measure the distance between them, how is that same person incapable of finding two landmarks in Street View and checking how many seconds of video exists between passing one and passing the other? Platystemon fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Aug 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
How many idiots sitting in their cubicles do you think want to bother going through that for the typical minor accident/speeding ticket?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
I think the only two choices here is either say gently caress you to the man and GPS your ride with your middle finger in constant view of the dashcam or live in a bubble with a tinfoil hat on so those pesky GPS signals don't invade your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
jabro posted:I think the only two choices here is either say gently caress you to the man and GPS your ride with your middle finger in constant view of the dashcam or live in a bubble with a tinfoil hat on so those pesky GPS signals don't invade your thoughts. The finger is the only acceptable way to express displeasure because an audible “gently caress you” would run afoul of wiretapping laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 00:09
|
|