Well you know what they say, one mans abschnittsbevollmachtigter is another mans proof of innocence.
Happydaze:
Wiretwister:
Happydaze:
I think both of you make good and valid points, and I can see why you take the positions that you do.Look at it from a wider angle (pun not intended) though. Everybody who willfully fits one of these devices contributes to less freedom of choice for those who disagree with them. The more normalised they become, the nearer they get to being the industry norm. What’s the next step? Mandatory fitment. Then mandatory fitment in your private vehicle or you won’t get insurance. How long before they’re fitted in your home for the same reason?
If you think I’m being paranoid, have a think about how many insurance policies you are effectively obliged to have these days. Who sets the terms? The government and the insurance companies.
Wedges have thin edges, chaps.
I don’t see the rational for saying “willfully” fitting these devices contributes to less freedom. If someone wants to contest a version of events offered by another is the camera footage not evidence that can be used to determine the more probable version?
If Johnny crash stager wants to take a chance then he can. Only thing is his victim can help protect himself from the full effect of the ne’er do well. If impinging on the freedoms of ne’er do wells is such a bad thing then so be it, if reducing the cost of my insurance by fighting back against such activities reduces their freedoms then so be it. Don’t forget accidents/incidents in the lorry while at work can also affect your private vehicle insurance.
When you suggest that mandatory fitting may be the next step if they become so wide spread is that not how seat belts came to be mandatory. Would you say that seat belts are an infringement of freedoms? Perhaps they are but they deliver a greater good (reduced injuries in the event of a crash). These devices can help reduce the financial injuries of contested incidents.
That’s correct, you don’t. That’s why you’re not concerned about them. Do you subscribe to the theory that “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” too? You assume that the more probable version will work in your favour.
You don’t get paid to “fight back” aginst miscreants, so leave it to the professionals. Seatbelts became mandatory for the reasons I raised earlier, mandatory Insurance and its consequences. I do say that seatbelts are an impingement on freedom. As for the greater good angle, that’s been used to justify all sorts of laws and actions for many years, it’s a catch-all to coerce people into doing what others want them to do.
Aww, you were doing so well up to that point! You are right of course in that all these cameras are a double edged sword but for many drivers it seems like they feel it offers a degree of job protection and that outweighs the Big Brother scenario. As an agency driver myself all it takes for them to say “no longer required” is an element of doubt if I get involved in an accident with no appeal for me. I haven’t got one yet but I am considering it.
The fact that we need a camera to prove our innocence is a major infringement of our civil liberties 
I thought the law of the land was ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ 
Insurance companies are a BOCs, they want to grab money from every party or failing that they ‘judge’ things to be knock for knock so they pay out SFA, it’s almost extortion and it’s legal, well what a load of bollox that is 
I would be interested to hear the outcome of this case, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s judged as a knock for knock, yet clearly the ■■■■■■■■ in the car is at fault
So what’s happening then Tyler, now. What’s the next step?
What a hoot, innocent until proven guilty, you’ve been out of this country too long. You will expect justice next. That goes to the people with the deepest pockets and the best lawyers. Any lawyer these days would have the film thrown out on a technicality and then it’s one word against another.
Sam Millar:
So what’s happening then Tyler, now. What’s the next step?
Well all the relevant info including video evidence has been passed to those concerned so all I can do now is wait 
newmercman:
The fact that we need a camera to prove our innocence is a major infringement of our civil libertiesI thought the law of the land was ‘Innocent until proven guilty’
Insurance companies are a BOCs, they want to grab money from every party or failing that they ‘judge’ things to be knock for knock so they pay out SFA, it’s almost extortion and it’s legal, well what a load of bollox that is
I would be interested to hear the outcome of this case, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s judged as a knock for knock, yet clearly the [zb] in the car is at fault
Bah, I wanted to say that! 
44 Tonne Ton:
Happydaze:
Wiretwister:
Happydaze:
I think both of you make good and valid points, and I can see why you take the positions that you do.Look at it from a wider angle (pun not intended) though. Everybody who willfully fits one of these devices contributes to less freedom of choice for those who disagree with them. The more normalised they become, the nearer they get to being the industry norm. What’s the next step? Mandatory fitment. Then mandatory fitment in your private vehicle or you won’t get insurance. How long before they’re fitted in your home for the same reason?
If you think I’m being paranoid, have a think about how many insurance policies you are effectively obliged to have these days. Who sets the terms? The government and the insurance companies.
Wedges have thin edges, chaps.
I don’t see the rational for saying “willfully” fitting these devices contributes to less freedom. If someone wants to contest a version of events offered by another is the camera footage not evidence that can be used to determine the more probable version?
If Johnny crash stager wants to take a chance then he can. Only thing is his victim can help protect himself from the full effect of the ne’er do well. If impinging on the freedoms of ne’er do wells is such a bad thing then so be it, if reducing the cost of my insurance by fighting back against such activities reduces their freedoms then so be it. Don’t forget accidents/incidents in the lorry while at work can also affect your private vehicle insurance.
When you suggest that mandatory fitting may be the next step if they become so wide spread is that not how seat belts came to be mandatory. Would you say that seat belts are an infringement of freedoms? Perhaps they are but they deliver a greater good (reduced injuries in the event of a crash). These devices can help reduce the financial injuries of contested incidents.
That’s correct, you don’t. That’s why you’re not concerned about them. Do you subscribe to the theory that “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” too? You assume that the more probable version will work in your favour.
You don’t get paid to “fight back” aginst miscreants, so leave it to the professionals. Seatbelts became mandatory for the reasons I raised earlier, mandatory Insurance and its consequences. I do say that seatbelts are an impingement on freedom. As for the greater good angle, that’s been used to justify all sorts of laws and actions for many years, it’s a catch-all to coerce people into doing what others want them to do.
Aww, you were doing so well up to that point! You are right of course in that all these cameras are a double edged sword but for many drivers it seems like they feel it offers a degree of job protection and that outweighs the Big Brother scenario. As an agency driver myself all it takes for them to say “no longer required” is an element of doubt if I get involved in an accident with no appeal for me. I haven’t got one yet but I am considering it.
Yes but that’s the root of the problem. They’re putting 100% of their trust in a device that gives nothing like the same percentage in protection from blame and will dumbly place them 100% at fault in adverse circumstances.
The reward for having one must outweigh the risk of not having one. That is not the case .
tyler4164:
Sam Millar:
So what’s happening then Tyler, now. What’s the next step?Well all the relevant info including video evidence has been passed to those concerned so all I can do now is wait
I Betz you’ll be waiting a while for a reply!
Happydaze:
tyler4164:
Sam Millar:
So what’s happening then Tyler, now. What’s the next step?Well all the relevant info including video evidence has been passed to those concerned so all I can do now is wait
I Betz you’ll be waiting a while for a reply!
Well to be honest as long as I don’t get any ■■■■ as a result of this accident then if the company wants to pay out that’s no concern of mine. Big companies always pay up as it’s easier then fighting it through the courts. It’s not my money so what will be will be
Depends if he says its his fault or denies it, other half had a car fly up the slip road, there was no where for anyone to go to get out of his way, and the car driver was adamant he was getting in front of the truck, managed to get himself tangled up with the passenger side cab step.
Other half got loads of pics, was straight on the phone to his boss, and the car driver had no choice but to admit it was his fault, his insurance paid out for a new step without a fight.
i wouldve watched the video but i seen this at the side and was distracted somehow
stuartrobbie:
i wouldve watched the video but i seen this at the side and was distracted somehowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIzjXPbh8w&feature=endscreen&NR=1
sounds like after he hit you you just woke up after having a doze
waynedl:
Take the M60 from Stockport to M67 towards Glossop (Sheffield) as a prime example. Most people use both right lanes to join the M67, but you should only use the right hand one
+1
what is it about this r/b that people don`t understand 
as the m67 lane swings out into what is now the middle lane…you can bet your bottom dollar some pleb will be on your n/s.
■■■■ poor driving…no forward planning and no lane disipline.all you have to do is follow the lines ffs
commonrail:
waynedl:
Take the M60 from Stockport to M67 towards Glossop (Sheffield) as a prime example. Most people use both right lanes to join the M67, but you should only use the right hand one+1
what is it about this r/b that people don`t understand
as the m67 lane swings out into what is now the middle lane…you can bet your bottom dollar some pleb will be on your n/s.
■■■■ poor driving…no forward planning and no lane disipline.all you have to do is follow the lines ffs
Yep, but you’ve got to admit that it’s bad road design, could’ve easily used both the right lanes for the m67 in the way that most people do use it, and then we’d be less likely to have some muppet on our nearside trying to force us over.
The A57 exit isn’t used enough to warrant the road design.
I agree
Got some feedback from my company. They watched the video & said it put me in the clear & was going to send a copy to their insurance company. Will be interesting to know how it goes. If i can find out i will let you know.
waynedl:
Take the M60 from Stockport to M67 towards Glossop (Sheffield) as a prime example. Most people use both right lanes to join the M67, but you should only use the right hand one, BUT there’s no reason why they couldn’t have marked it so you could use both the right lanes and this would definately of prevented a lot of accidents and reduced congestion since most people are going onto the M67.
What you get instead is a queue in the right lane that takes 5 light changes to get through, then you’ve got cars flying up your inside and cutting in, and this is bad road planning.
This is my least favourite junction in England and I often used to take the M62 to avoid it because seldomly did a time go by where some canute doesn’t do just that and cut in. I’ve clipped a car there before who then tried blaming me for it and won their case against me despite me taking photos of the scene and and all road markings indecating she was in the wrong lane. She even made a statement saying she intended on joining the M67 which automatically meant she was in the wrong lane, but she got away with it. It really begs belief that this piece of road is unchanged after all these years, there must be numerous bumps there every day.
robinhood_1984:
waynedl:
Take the M60 from Stockport to M67 towards Glossop (Sheffield) as a prime example. Most people use both right lanes to join the M67, but you should only use the right hand one, BUT there’s no reason why they couldn’t have marked it so you could use both the right lanes and this would definately of prevented a lot of accidents and reduced congestion since most people are going onto the M67.
What you get instead is a queue in the right lane that takes 5 light changes to get through, then you’ve got cars flying up your inside and cutting in, and this is bad road planning.This is my least favourite junction in England and I often used to take the M62 to avoid it because seldomly did a time go by where some canute doesn’t do just that and cut in. I’ve clipped a car there before who then tried blaming me for it and won their case against me despite me taking photos of the scene and and all road markings indecating she was in the wrong lane. She even made a statement saying she intended on joining the M67 which automatically meant she was in the wrong lane, but she got away with it. It really begs belief that this piece of road is unchanged after all these years, there must be numerous bumps there every day.
Had a car try shoving me out of my lane there, wasn’t too bad at impact, but when I braked the front of the truck dipped and broke the car.
She also tried blaming me, so I got the police out, who then took her round the roundabout and showed her the lanes, she then agreed to being at fault.
Definately an advert for a camera like the OP