Brilliant! I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more stories like this as their use becomes more widespread.

Heaven forbid... and the CCTV footage would have shown him running and kicking the car anyhow... as to whos to blame for him doing that I can't see how the in car footage would have shown anything different, except from a different angle...

I remain very much against the introduction of these things except in appropriate vehicles... ie Police Cars...

Too much open to abuse (its easy to change video footage)... a development we just don't need.

Well B308 the CCTv only picked up a guy lying in the street which could of made it look like a hit & run. My in car footage was a life saver!

& yes it wasn't a good night for the hooligan

you got it in one "wellknown sid" as they say a pictutre paints a thousand words! it removed any element of doubt that the police may of had about my side of events.

Had the guy of claimed a hit & run & the cctv not capturing the whole event it could of been very awkard!

These things are popular in America and I believe some insurance companies over there insist on them.

Previous posts about in car cameras have revealed an inevitable split between those who are paranoid and fear the worst 'big brother/police state' scenarios and those who know the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Bilboman, you fear in future the police could confiscate any driver's footage and use it to incriminate himself. If that happens, by then there will be a law that states we must all have in car video recording devices anyway.

Consider this:

How many times have we driven along a road and seen those yellow police signs stating: Accident, Sunday 18th March 17:20pm. If you witnessed anything please ring...

If in-car footage from a number of different vehicles recorded what caused a crash it could save money in ensuing investigations and inquiries and could even result in roads being closed for shorter periods of time since the police could review footage captured and possibly rely less on measuring tyre marks.

Apologies B308, you may not be paranoid but you do seem overly concerned.

Where is the evidence of thousands of innocent people being fitted up each year by doctored video footage then?

I mean, I am aware on YouTube there are lots of doctored images and 'special effects' but these stand out a mile. Besides millions of ordinary people already own the technology to record your for i?m?a?g?e? ?a?n?d? ???????your voice in the form of compact digital cameras, mobile phones etc s????????????????????????o why would the motoring public do anything different with an in-car device than could be done currently with existing technology?

???Besides, if in car camera technology became the norm and possibly even a legal requirement, should someone decide to doctor the images ?presumably the person bei?ng? targeted would have their own version of recorded events to counteract.? ?a?n?y? ?a?c?c?u?s?a?t?i?o?n?s?.? Any dispute subsequently arising in a court of law would be subject to that law and have to meet the accepted rule of being 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In the 19th century, it was panaroia that made people think they would suffocate if they rode in an open top train at more than 30mph. Look where we'd be now if it wasn't for progress? ?a?n?d? ?t?e?c?h?n?o?l?o?g?y.

Sorry, that sounds a bit condecending... I appologise for that... but you and some others seem to blithly think that it is only good that will come from unregulated use of these things and that no one will have the audacity to alter things to suit themselves, despite youtube having shown that it already happens...

I strongly disagree with that and also the possible intrusion of my personal privacy.

I think the point here is that the CCTV gathered by the driver allowed the Police to say to the yob, 'look we know what happened so don't lie', which is entirely different to it being admissible in court. As has often been found most private footage is useless from an evidence point of view, hence the need for strict forensic control. Like most digital media with the right software you can tell if it's been altered.

I'm sure that if cameras were statutory some people would never get insured again.

Steve.

You can buy a single facing camera or a twin pack that views the rear as well. The forward facing is sufficient as it still records impact levels on a graph should you be hit from behind.

www.roadhawk.co.uk/roadhawk-RH-1.htm

I doc

You can also use it to show the other person what happened.

Oh boy, we are doing the Police's job now as well are we!

They have, and use, the video to show other road users what they are doing wrong... no problem, as to any Tom Dick or Harry doing that... err no thanks... I could see a reason in that particular case, but certainly not in general...

On the old forum we had a guy called Paul2007 who was all for the use of these cameras to do exactly that, I beleive its called a Vigilante...

This thread gives a whole new meaning to Big Brother....

Except its not the State thats watching you....

Sorry, but this comment isn't particularly constructive. WKS

Edited by WellKnownSid on 22/04/2010 at 16:09

My car manual already states that the ECU records and stores information, including speed and that it will also log information including such in the event of a crash. No doubt designed so that things such as crash data and airbag deployment / sensor data and speed can be collated overrall, But it also says that this information can be handed to law enforcement agencies.

My guess is this also applies to most modern cars. It's non visual, but with the application and recording of everything for gear position, rpm, speed and more, how long before all of this will be a quick OBD2/CANBUS grab by SOCO and will be able to help build a picture of an event.

I also reckon that 99% of people with an optionally fitted camera, would "lose" the data if they knew they were at fault, but quite happily use it point the finger at someone else. I'm not going to get involved into the morals of this. It's a mix of modern human nature and our ability of self survival.

What will be, will be. Cameras will come eventually no doubt. Not overnight, but by slow oppression. Incentives, the lure of low premiums, all new cars being fitted and before you know it, it's second nature.

Least it will mean we will have a constant source of video to show on Police, Camera, Action every day of the year! ;-)

I have just found this thread and would like to ask a couple of questions.

I have been using a RoadCam camera for a couple of years or so but, unfortunately, it has now given up the ghost. I would like to buy a replacement, but not sure which one to go for.

There seem to be basically two types. One, such as the www.dogcamsport.co.uk/roadhawk-rh1-drive-camera.htm mentioned above, and another like the www.dogcamsport.co.uk/contourhd-1080p.html.

The first has the advantage of 3D G-sensors and GPS tracking but, like my old RoadCam, has rather limited resolution and usually will not record a clear number plate. The second doesn't have these frills, but has much higher resolution.

Which option would you suggest is best for the primary purpose of evidential protection in the case of accidents (and dishonest other parties), and why?

The other thing I would like to ask is how useful are these recordings? There are suggestions on this thread that they can be edited and changed fraudulently. I'm no expert but I would have thought that one minute, say, of recording at 30fps would present 1800 individual images which would each need to be altered in some way. I cannot imagine anyone doing that easily; I certainly could not do it at all!

Does anyone know definitively whether such a recording would be accepted in court?

Thanks, Injection doc.

Clearly, you use a Roadhawk. I was wondering whether you, or anyone else, can answer my other question regarding the suitability of different types of camera. One concern about the one you use is that I don't think number plates appear very clearly in the preview videos I have seen. Do you find that a problem?

Each type seems to have its advantages and disadvantages, and I want to be sure before I lay out a couple of hundred pounds.

The RoadHawk RH1 does seem a good piece of kit, and I have seen it recommended elsewhere. It is certainly an improvement on my old RoadCam inasmuch as it not only includes GPS tracking, but also can record continuously within the limit of the memory card (please correct me if I am wrong here). The RoadCam, on the other hand, was limited to recording only about 30 seconds after a recording has been triggered, and its internal memory (no SD card) could contain up to ten such recordings before overwriting.

I'd still like to hear more about higher definition cameras, though, such as the Contour HD 1080p as on the DogCam web side I mentioned above. I do realise that these cameras are geared more to motorsports enthusiasts and skiiers, for example, who simply wish to record their high-speed exploits, and do not include the GPS and G-force extras.

Other factors to consider, of course, are frame rate and the ability to record in low-light conditions. Some examples of video I have seen on the Internet seem a little jerky, though I have heard that this may be the fault of YouTube rather than the cameras. Specifications quote such figures as 1 Lux and 0.01 Lux with regard to light sensitivity, though I am not sure what the difference is in practice.

I am still trying to weigh up the pros and cons of GPS tracking and G-force recording as opposed to higher definition, especially with regard to clearly imaging number plates. I suppose my ideal would to have both though, even if such a thing did exist, I should expect to have to pay several hundred pounds more!

Edited by Jbr on 25/06/2010 at 00:39