|
|
Post by jackspicer on Jul 23, 2021 21:49:03 GMT
Considering they're around $50.00 for a decent one, not including MicroSD card, it seems like you would be a fool not to have one.
A fool, I say.
Yet, most of the cars I see parked along my street don't have one. In fact, I think I'm the only person who has one (for about two years now).
Why are you so foolish that you would not spend $50.00 to prove that a $10,000.00+ accident was not your fault?
Just wondering. Defend your foolishness; or, tell me about your dash cam, and how smart you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Jul 26, 2021 13:22:10 GMT
Considering they're around $50.00 for a decent one, not including MicroSD card, it seems like you would be a fool not to have one. A fool, I say. Yet, most of the cars I see parked along my street don't have one. In fact, I think I'm the only person who has one (for about two years now). Why are you so foolish that you would not spend $50.00 to prove that a $10,000.00+ accident was not your fault? Just wondering. Defend your foolishness; or, tell me about your dash cam, and how smart you are. In some countries - mostly third world like Germany or Russiam - you need one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 27, 2021 5:02:51 GMT
I've looked at reviews and they aren't worth owning unless you spend $125 or more. The cheap ones flake out and the ccd isn't good enough to read license plates. Probably only a matter of time until they are standard equipment in decent cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Jul 29, 2021 22:45:20 GMT
I've looked at reviews and they aren't worth owning unless you spend $125 or more. The cheap ones flake out and the ccd isn't good enough to read license plates. Probably only a matter of time until they are standard equipment in decent cars. Well, 1. I know from personal experience mine can read license plates. 2. You wouldn't need to read the license plate unless it's a rare case of hit-and-run. If you and the other driver both stop, and it's the other driver's word against yours, then you would only need to determine who is being truthful, not what his license plate says. You didn't think your post through before replying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 30, 2021 2:23:20 GMT
I've looked at reviews and they aren't worth owning unless you spend $125 or more. The cheap ones flake out and the ccd isn't good enough to read license plates. Probably only a matter of time until they are standard equipment in decent cars. Well, 1. I know from personal experience mine can read license plates. 2. You wouldn't need to read the license plate unless it's a rare case of hit-and-run. If you and the other driver both stop, and it's the other driver's word against yours, then you would only need to determine who is being truthful, not what his license plate says. You didn't think your post through before replying. You admit there are scenarios where you would like to read the license plate, well I have been the victim of these rare hit and runs. What brand/model camera do you have? Perhaps they have improved since I last looked at reviews, or yours is a model I haven't seen reviewed. $50 for a dash cam is dirt cheap, so I would be happy to know a model that delivered good results in that price range.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Jul 30, 2021 6:25:55 GMT
You admit there are scenarios where you would like to read the license plate, well I have been the victim of these rare hit and runs. What brand/model camera do you have? Perhaps they have improved since I last looked at reviews, or yours is a model I haven't seen reviewed. $50 for a dash cam is dirt cheap, so I would be happy to know a model that delivered good results in that price range.
In the vast majority of situations, the other driver will stop, but will dispute having run a light/sign, or dispute having made an improper lane change, etc. A dash cam can end the argument immediately. My first (and only) cam is the Apeman C420. This video shows at what distance/conditions plates become illegible. youtu.be/ZR4aTZOJM7I?t=185 But, as I said, plates are not the primary reason to have one, and you can read the plate aloud into the microphone, since the cam records audio.
|
|
loofapotato
Junior Member
@loofapotato
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,476
|
Post by loofapotato on Aug 10, 2021 16:03:46 GMT
Considering they're around $50.00 for a decent one, not including MicroSD card, it seems like you would be a fool not to have one. A fool, I say. Yet, most of the cars I see parked along my street don't have one. In fact, I think I'm the only person who has one (for about two years now). Why are you so foolish that you would not spend $50.00 to prove that a $10,000.00+ accident was not your fault? Just wondering. Defend your foolishness; or, tell me about your dash cam, and how smart you are. In some countries - mostly third world like Germany or Russiam - you need one. da Dashcam video or even security video are not admissible as evidence in a court of law in Germany due to their very strict privacy laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Aug 10, 2021 16:09:11 GMT
In some countries - mostly third world like Germany or Russiam - you need one. da Dashcam video or even security video are not admissible as evidence in a court of law in Germany due to their very strict privacy laws. Wrong:
|
|
loofapotato
Junior Member
@loofapotato
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,476
|
Post by loofapotato on Aug 10, 2021 16:18:56 GMT
Dashcam video or even security video are not admissible as evidence in a court of law in Germany due to their very strict privacy laws. Wrong: Not entirely. The law hasn't changed from a ruling done in a Heilbronn court back in 2015 "only for civil trials". But the later 2018 ruling from the Federal court gave allowance. The last line, "Die Videoaufzeichnung ist trotz Verstoßes gegen das Datenschutzrecht im Zivilprozess als Beweismittel verwertbar." says evidence can be used in civil cases despite violating data protection law.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Aug 10, 2021 17:36:17 GMT
Not entirely. The law hasn't changed from a ruling done in a Heilbronn court back in 2015 "only for civil trials". But the later 2018 ruling from the Federal court gave allowance. The last line, "Die Videoaufzeichnung ist trotz Verstoßes gegen das Datenschutzrecht im Zivilprozess als Beweismittel verwertbar." says evidence can be used in civil cases despite violating data protection law.
A) of course it has changed due to the ruling of Bundesgerichtshof: "The Federal Court of Justice (German: Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in Karlsruhe is the highest court in the system of ordinary jurisdiction (ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit) in Germany. It is the supreme court (court of last resort) in all matters of criminal and private law, and B) it clearly states that these recordings can be used as evidence. Ergo: I'm wright, you are wrong. Me: It can be used as evidence. That was and is my stance, and it is correct. You: No, it can't. What is wrong. To quote yourself: No, despite these laws, they are admissible in a court in Germany, and so I stand corrected. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Das nennt man Güterabwägung, und hier wurde der Wahrheitsfindung gegenüber dem Datenschutz der Vorrang eingeräumt. Und die Entscheidung ist höchstrichterlich, und sie schließt auch permanente und anlasslose Aufzeichungen mit ein. Und das ist auch notwendig: www.welt.de/vermischtes/article230422461/Autokorso-auf-A3-Anklage-nach-spektakulaerer-Blockade-gegen-Braeutigam.htmlwww.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/a3-bei-ratingen-mutter-aller-hochzeitskorsos-anklage-wegen-blockade-a-3fa8ae70-1d3c-4217-80ff-c57d024ebfe6Und das is nicht die Ausnahmen, sondern die Regel bei dem Moslem. www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_85669196/hochzeitskorsos-die-haerte-des-staates-wird-das-problem-nicht-loesen-.htmlwww.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/auto-hochzeit-polizei-1.4398180Durch die massive Bedrohung durch den Moslem, ist diese neue Rechtssprechung schlicht notwendig.
|
|
loofapotato
Junior Member
@loofapotato
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,476
|
Post by loofapotato on Aug 11, 2021 21:16:19 GMT
1) My understanding was prior to the now recent changes to the law by the courts that I was unaware of because I hardly pay attention to German news. I forgot to add in my original post that video evidence from criminal acts are allowed. 2) It was you who quoted from the Federal Court to which I pointed out the last line. It doesn't 3) That wedding blockade isn't civil, it's criminal hence the involvement of prosecutors. 4) In civil matters, any allowed video evidence from dashcams has be really short and limited in scope pertaining to whatever incident. The whole video more likely may not be permitted. www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deutschland/dashcam/5) All you had to state was the Federal Court have ruled a change in law that allows for video evidence instead of being an ass. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Aug 15, 2021 20:47:53 GMT
Apparently they're banned in Austria, for 'privacy' reasons. I don't know how anyone can justify the claim that there is a reasonable expectation of 'privacy' on a public street.
|
|
