ovy:
Be careful company’s start putting these in for insurance purposes then over time start to use them to remove unwanted drivers!! my cousin works for a firm that use smart drive so has a camera on the driver/in cab he can’t even scratch his face incase it sets off the record on it.NO Eating/drinking smoking ect basically both hands on wheel unless changing gear, seatbelt at all times and no gesturing of any kind! You get the idea…
Is this legal?
I will start killing people if this happens.
Yep, totally legal, i’m a london bus driver, we have a camera on us all the time.
CCTV from a vehcile can be used by the police/courts, we supply it all the time to the police.
Gembo:
What are masses oppinion on this statement i copied from another forum on the subject?
Quote-
""In general though the camera’s are not good enough to use as evidence for a prosecution.
Video someone speeding or jumping a red light you will probably be told to go and get a life.
In the event of a serious incident it maybe viewed to help them choose which way to investigate it.
But not good enough itself.“”
End quote.
I agree. They’re not gonna type-approved or calibrated to prove speeds accurately but then that’s not what they’re for, nor should anyone be interested in trying to do the authority’s job. They could sure be used to provide evidence of serious wrongdoing though (even excess speeding, though I wonder if anyone else would be interested if nothing else happened), especially in the “my word against yours” situation, if they capture the relevant pictures, e.g. number plates, identification of individuals, evidence of being on the phone etc. as well as any incidents of actual poor driving, though these sort of things can be quite difficult to capture as you’d possibly have to be quite close and stationary IMO. The camera, unlike people, never lies, does it?
Yeah, i guess im trying to justify the expense and wether or not its a worthwhile investement. I can see the guys argument from his quote i posted here but surely if you were involved in a smack and the police tunred up, you could just bung them the memory card and job done, you wouldn’t have time to mess with the footage?? And it would be taken seriously.
I had a minor mirror smashing incident on a rural road a few months back. I then had to explain to my boss why he was paying out 60 quid for a new mirror head. Had i had CCTV he would have seen at first hand that the driver of the wagon coming the other way was traveling around a blind corner far to fast to react and forcing me to ‘ditch it’ into the trees on the nearside to avoid a nasty collision but breaking a mirror in the process!
rambo19:
CCTV from a vehcile can be used by the police/courts, we supply it all the time to the police.
I wonder how it would stand if it was jo blogs who fitted a ‘freelance job’ in his truck or car though?
rambo19:
Yep, totally legal, i’m a london bus driver, we have a camera on us all the time.
That must be the little dome camera i see on top of all the dashbords of coaches and buses now?
I see alot are now fitted with one on the Nearside aswel.
I use DailyRoads Voyager app on my Galaxy S3, you can set it to record in background whilst using Navigation/Phone/Angry Birds, lots of settings to play about with to get it just right for what you need, and it works reliably. I would suggest buying a decent mount for any phone based recorder as many bounce about.
I have trialled quite a few apps and found many unreliable, gimmicky, or just downright blatant ad/mal/spyware.
albion1971:
Great idea.Should be made compulsory.They could prevent a lot of accidents which can only be a good thing.
Don’t agree it will prevent them unless people start driving differently after they are installed. On the most part its just to help you afterwards.
Gembo:
What are masses oppinion on this statement i copied from another forum on the subject?
Quote-
""In general though the camera’s are not good enough to use as evidence for a prosecution.
Video someone speeding or jumping a red light you will probably be told to go and get a life.
In the event of a serious incident it maybe viewed to help them choose which way to investigate it.
But not good enough itself.“”
End quote.
Its not good enough to prosecute for speeding, but that’s also not what its being installed for.
Speed can be calculated accurately enough to strengthen your case against another driver, in an accident situation it would put you in a significantly better position. You’re not talking burden of proof here for a serious offence, you’re proving your other evidence (statement mostly) is accurate and credible.
Ian G:
I wonder how it would stand if it was jo blogs who fitted a ‘freelance job’ in his truck or car though?
Exactly the same way if Jo Blogs owned a shop and had CCTV of a shoplifter etc. It would be seized by the police and submitted as evidence for the prosecution.
What you have to remember is that you can film or photograph anyone or thing that is in the public domain,the only law against filming / photographing is against the Prevention of terrorist act,and that is a specific piece of legislation for undesirables,not for motorists filming there driving.
The quality will have to be of a good make up and it must have time and date stamp on it,before can be used in evidence,the trouble with a lot of the cheaper cameras even the Roadhawk RH1 is the quality of the capture on the number plate,it more often than not is illegible.
I have since bought another HD camera and the quality is spot on it runs in either 1080dp or 1080 HD this is called the smart cam which at the time of my purchase was only £39.99 and I have a 32gb SD card in it as it uses up a lot of memory at the 1080 time.
I will try and put a copy of a run on youtube if I can get it on.