On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:09:38 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:42:51 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:20:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:58:50 +0100, Nick
wrote:

In message 2,
DerbyBorn writes
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents. I recall
seeing
enthusiastic reviews some time back (when I wasn't thinking of
getting
one)
that was about £30.
Has anone any experience of such a cheap camera?
I got one for ~£10 that seems to do the job, but from reading around
it
appears that the insurance companies, police etc. aren't interested
unless it's got GPS so that your own speed, location and time can be
verified. I therefore went for the model below, but it's a tad more
than
you may want to pay - £150ish.

http://amzn.to/1EKScV9

Speed location and time is irrelevant if the video clearly shows the
other
person doing an illegal manoeuvre.

But may be useful if for example someone overtakes you
when you are going at the current legal maximum speed
and misjudges the speed of the oncoming traffic and
causes an accident when they have to pull into your
lane very suddenly etc.

Speeding would be irrelevant.

Not in that case where it's the speeding that caused the accident.

You sound like the ****witted police.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

The cause of the accident in either case is misjudging how much time there
is to overtake. That can happen below or above the speed limit.

And when you were well over the speed limit, the other
driver who decided he had plenty of time to safely
overtake is not at fault. You are at fault for going well
over the speed limit and not giving him time to
overtake safely.

Fool. If he was overtaking me while I wqs speeding, then he was speeding even more!

Same with intersection accidents where someone
decides that there is plenty of time to get thru the
intersection when the other car is going at legal
speeds but not time when its exceeding the speed
limit substantially.

If you can't see what speed someone is doing by looking at them, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

They would still be at fault even if you were going below the speed
limit,
and they were at it.

But its more obvious that they are at fault if
they were going well over the speed limit.

Speeding a is a poor excuse to find who is "guilty" without looking into
the accident properly.

It can be the cause of the accident.

No, it can't.

Let's say Jim is driving West over the speed limit. Tony is driving East
on the same road, falls asleep at the wheel, and has a head on collision.
I suppose you'd say it was Jim's fault for speeding?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Stop avoiding the question.

Same with where they claim that you were exceeding
the speed limit when they were at fault in the same
way with them in the other lane coming towards you.
They can't claim that you were at fault because you
were going well over the speed limit and that they
could have passed the other car safely if you had
been going at a legal speed.

Speed doesn't matter.

Corse it does when the other car can't even be seen.

It's whether the overtaker judged the speed correctly.

Not even possible if the other car can't even be seen.

Stop thinking up remote possibilities to prove your point.

--
The Red Cross just knocked on my door and asked if we could contribute towards the floods in Lebanon.
I said we'd love to, but our garden hose only reaches the driveway.