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?

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
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?

Metoo!

I'm just looking for something that will record "it was the stupid bugger in
front's fault" I don't even need it (though it would be nice) to be a good
enough to prove who that stupid bugger was.

I've no interest in taking videos that I will keep to "show to my
friends"/"review my driving performance", which I understand is the
motivation of many who buy this "toy"

tim

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
--
Nick (=----)

On 22/08/2015 12:47, DerbyBorn wrote:
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?


Have a look on this http://www.techmoan.com/guide-to-dashcams/ website

Have a look at the different dash cams and he thinks of them. That
should give you some ideas as to what would suite you.

I bought a mobious dashcam last year, and love it.

tim..... wrote:

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
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?

Metoo!

I'm just looking for something that will record "it was the stupid
bugger in front's fault" I don't even need it (though it would be nice)
to be a good enough to prove who that stupid bugger was.

I've no interest in taking videos that I will keep to "show to my
friends"/"review my driving performance", which I understand is the
motivation of many who buy this "toy"

tim



I've bought a couple of cheap units from Amazon. They work remarkably
well. The dark performance surprises me, Purely used as a toy so far.

On 22/08/2015 15:55, BobH wrote:

Have a look on this http://www.techmoan.com/guide-to-dashcams/ website

Have a look at the different dash cams and he thinks of them. That
should give you some ideas as to what would suite you.


+1

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to gmx

On 22/08/2015 12:47, DerbyBorn wrote:
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 bought a Transcend DrivePro 200 a few months ago. Very nice image
quality. About £80 in Halfords I believe.

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

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?

In message , Nick
writes
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

I'm still using the very cheap sub-£10 ones in the car. I have 2 and
swap them round from time to time. There are occasional problems where I
have to reset, but they are amazingly good for the price.

In the Disco, I have tried an Android tablet in a windscreen mount. It's
a bit big and I had what looked like hum bars moving up the screen until
I poked some rubber between the dash and the tablet to reduce the
vibration.
There is free software, which I think will record the GPS etc. The only
time I've really tried it was on a trip across Wales last summer, and
the quality was excellent. I just did a linear record, but I think it
can be set to loop record.
--
Bill

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.

--
In the event that all else has failed, and it seems tempting to actually read the instructions, don't panic: Get a bigger hammer!

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

--
If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:47:53 +0100, DerbyBorn wrote:

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?

This does me fine: GS8000L - £17 inc postage. I added a large SD card though, it uses it up quick. And buy a known make like Kingston and make sure it's a speed 10 or better, there's some **** SD cards going about that can't handle continuous high speed writing. The first two I bought I had to get refunds for. One was too slow and one broke.

--
I consider exercise vulgar, it makes people smell. -- Alec Yuill Thornton

"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.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.
Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

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

--
Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps. But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were driving.

--
I once got the stuffing beat out of me fighting for a girl's honour.
She wanted to keep it.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no claims
because it was my fault

tim

"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.

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.

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.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

But they obviously do occur.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

It isn't hard to have the lens so that it isn't obviously a camera lens.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were
driving.

But it makes more sense to have the cameras do it all
and be a reversing camera and parking camera as well.

I find with the modern cars that slope very sharply at the
front, it isn't at all clear just where the front of the car is
when parking so it would be useful to have the cameras
help with that as well.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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. It's whether the overtaker judged the speed correctly.

--
How come abbreviated is such a long word?

On 22/08/2015 20:20, Rod Speed wrote:

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.


If you can drive you would have seen that coming and taken avoiding
action to prevent a crash involving you.
Of course if they pull into the side of you the camera probably won't
see it happen.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:46:53 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

But they obviously do occur.

Too rare to worry about.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

It isn't hard to have the lens so that it isn't obviously a camera lens.

Where would you place it?

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were
driving.

But it makes more sense to have the cameras do it all

I only need it for the most likely thing.

and be a reversing camera and parking camera as well.

Only if you're **** at those things.

I find with the modern cars that slope very sharply at the
front, it isn't at all clear just where the front of the car is
when parking so it would be useful to have the cameras
help with that as well.

I don't seem to have this problem. Just lean forwards.

--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

But they clearly do happen.

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no
claims because it was my fault

Sure, but if the dash cam wasn't visible and looked like it was
just a parking camera even when the wreck is examined by the
cops, you could avoid a very serious penalty for having caused
the accident.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

But they clearly do happen.

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no
claims because it was my fault

Sure, but if the dash cam wasn't visible and looked like it was
just a parking camera even when the wreck is examined by the
cops, you could avoid a very serious penalty for having caused
the accident.

Surely an investigative team would be trained to know the difference between a parking camera and a dashcam.

--
The greatest distance attained for a jet of semen that has ever been recorded is 18'9" (5.71 m) which was achieved with a "substantial" amount of seminal fluid by Horst Schultz.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

If you can drive you would have seen that coming

Not necessarily, most obviously in rolling country
where the other car may well be over the rise and
not visible.

and taken avoiding action to prevent a crash involving you.

Not even possible if you can't see the other car until too late.

Of course if they pull into the side of you
the camera probably won't see it happen.

Depends on how wide a view it has. The best ones will capture that.

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.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:46:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

But they obviously do occur.

Too rare to worry about.

But that is the sort of accident where it matters much
more than just who gets to pay for the repair of the car.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

It isn't hard to have the lens so that it isn't obviously a camera lens.

Where would you place it?

Most obviously in the body of the car, particularly if its
doing dual duty as an accident camera and parking camera.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were
driving.

But it makes more sense to have the cameras do it all

I only need it for the most likely thing.

Parking is much more likely than an accident.

and be a reversing camera and parking camera as well.

Only if you're **** at those things.

Got nothing to do with being ****, its just not possible
to see where the front of the car is with some cars.

I find with the modern cars that slope very sharply at the
front, it isn't at all clear just where the front of the car is
when parking so it would be useful to have the cameras
help with that as well.

I don't seem to have this problem. Just lean forwards.

Not even possible to see where the front of the car is
by doing that with plenty of cars. And you can never
see where the back of it is by doing that either.

And it would be much more convenient to just glance
at the screen anyway, particularly if it's a well designed
system which shows you the camera which currently
is the closest to something outside the car too.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

But they clearly do happen.

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no
claims because it was my fault

Sure, but if the dash cam wasn't visible and looked like it was
just a parking camera even when the wreck is examined by the
cops, you could avoid a very serious penalty for having caused
the accident.

Surely an investigative team would be trained to know the difference
between a parking camera and a dashcam.

There is no difference. particularly with a DIY one that erases
what it has recorded at the flick of the parking lights etc.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:17:24 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:46:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

But they obviously do occur.

Too rare to worry about.

But that is the sort of accident where it matters much
more than just who gets to pay for the repair of the car.

But since they are so rare, I don't worry about them as I'll probably never have one.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

It isn't hard to have the lens so that it isn't obviously a camera lens.

Where would you place it?

Most obviously in the body of the car, particularly if its
doing dual duty as an accident camera and parking camera.

You'd have to keep it watertight somehow.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were
driving.

But it makes more sense to have the cameras do it all

I only need it for the most likely thing.

Parking is much more likely than an accident.

and be a reversing camera and parking camera as well.

Only if you're **** at those things.

Got nothing to do with being ****, its just not possible
to see where the front of the car is with some cars.

Bull****.

I find with the modern cars that slope very sharply at the
front, it isn't at all clear just where the front of the car is
when parking so it would be useful to have the cameras
help with that as well.

I don't seem to have this problem. Just lean forwards.

Not even possible to see where the front of the car is
by doing that with plenty of cars. And you can never
see where the back of it is by doing that either.

You know the shape of your own car, do you have no spatial awareness whatsoever?

And it would be much more convenient to just glance
at the screen anyway, particularly if it's a well designed
system which shows you the camera which currently
is the closest to something outside the car too.

Easier for learner drivers perhaps.

--
In the Nintendo GameCube instruction manual:
"Do not attempt to stick head inside deck, which may result in injury"

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
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!

But that may have been because you were stupid
enough to accelerate because he was overtaking
to stop him doing that, ****wit.

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.

You can't see what speed they are doing if they aren't visible.

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.

Corse it can, most obviously when the car isn't even visible.

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.

No question was avoided.

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.

They aren't remote possibilitys, they are a common cause of accidents.

"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. 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.

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.

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?

Of course

If he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been on that bit of road,
at that specific time, in the first place

tim

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:20:15 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

But they clearly do happen.

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no
claims because it was my fault

Sure, but if the dash cam wasn't visible and looked like it was
just a parking camera even when the wreck is examined by the
cops, you could avoid a very serious penalty for having caused
the accident.

Surely an investigative team would be trained to know the difference
between a parking camera and a dashcam.

There is no difference. particularly with a DIY one that erases
what it has recorded at the flick of the parking lights etc.

A parking camera would have no memory for storage, so they would know it was a dashcam, investigate further, find the connection to erase it, and do you for perverting the course of justice.

--
What did the elephant say to the naked man?
How do you pick up anything with that?

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:17:24 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:46:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

But they obviously do occur.

Too rare to worry about.

But that is the sort of accident where it matters much
more than just who gets to pay for the repair of the car.

But since they are so rare, I don't worry about them as I'll probably
never have one.

You have always been, and always will be,
completely and utterly irrelevant.

Accidents when driving are rare too and
some choose to have dash cams anyway.

Makes more sense to have an invisible one so that
no one except you knows that there is one in your car.

The invisibility cloak has not yet been invented.

It isn't hard to have the lens so that it isn't obviously a camera
lens.

Where would you place it?

Most obviously in the body of the car, particularly if its
doing dual duty as an accident camera and parking camera.

You'd have to keep it watertight somehow.

Trivially easy to do, reversing cameras do it all the time.

And it makes sense for it to be able to do everything,
provide you with a record of who broke into your car
too and who side swiped it when it was parked or ran
into the back of your car.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

But the majority of the time it was someone hitting you when you were
driving.

But it makes more sense to have the cameras do it all

I only need it for the most likely thing.

Parking is much more likely than an accident.

and be a reversing camera and parking camera as well.

Only if you're **** at those things.

Got nothing to do with being ****, its just not possible
to see where the front of the car is with some cars.

Bull****.

Fact.

I find with the modern cars that slope very sharply at the
front, it isn't at all clear just where the front of the car is
when parking so it would be useful to have the cameras
help with that as well.

I don't seem to have this problem. Just lean forwards.

Not even possible to see where the front of the car is
by doing that with plenty of cars. And you can never
see where the back of it is by doing that either.

You know the shape of your own car,

Irrelevant to how close it is to something else.

And it would be much more convenient to just glance
at the screen anyway, particularly if it's a well designed
system which shows you the camera which currently
is the closest to something outside the car too.

Easier for learner drivers perhaps.

Easier for every driver.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:25:14 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
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!

But that may have been because you were stupid
enough to accelerate because he was overtaking
to stop him doing that, ****wit.

That could be seen on a dashcam without the ability to record speed.

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.

You can't see what speed they are doing if they aren't visible.

Almost never happens.

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.

No question was avoided.

Then answer it. Who is at fault, Jim or Tony?

--
Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:26:12 +0100, tim..... 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. 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.

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.

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?

Of course

If he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been on that bit of road,
at that specific time, in the first place

When I crash into you tomorrow, it's your fault for taking 2 seconds longer to clean your teeth. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have been on that bit of road, at that specific time, in the first place.

--
Imagine you are a child in your mother's womb, can you detect light?
Only during ballet practice.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:20:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:24:31 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:00:48 +0100, Santo Brown
wrote:



"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Thinking of getting one as support in cases of accidents.

IMO you need an invisible one so that if the accident
was your fault, you can just not mention it.

Just remove it quickly and hide it.

Easier said than done, particularly if it's a serious accident
and you can't get to it because you aren't free to move.

Can't say I've ever had one of those.

Nor me

But they clearly do happen.

and if I did, the last thing I would be worried about is losing my no
claims because it was my fault

Sure, but if the dash cam wasn't visible and looked like it was
just a parking camera even when the wreck is examined by the
cops, you could avoid a very serious penalty for having caused
the accident.

Surely an investigative team would be trained to know the difference
between a parking camera and a dashcam.

There is no difference. particularly with a DIY one that erases
what it has recorded at the flick of the parking lights etc.

A parking camera would have no memory for storage, so they would know it
was a dashcam,

Not if it was a DIY, you can just say that you tried to use
it as a dash cam as well but couldn't get that to work.

investigate further, find the connection to erase it,

Not even possible when it erases the program
as well when you do it with any of the DIY
things like a pi would use to implement it.

and do you for perverting the course of justice.

Not even possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:25:14 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
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!

But that may have been because you were stupid
enough to accelerate because he was overtaking
to stop him doing that, ****wit.

That could be seen on a dashcam without the ability to record speed.

Not if it never got in front of you because of your stupidity.

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.

You can't see what speed they are doing if they aren't visible.

Almost never happens.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Happens all the time in hilly country, with bends, and hedges etc.

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.

No question was avoided.

Then answer it. Who is at fault, Jim or Tony?

Obviously the one that went to sleep, stupid.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:20:12 +0100, Capitol wrote:

I'm just looking for something that will record "it was the stupid
bugger in front's fault"

The prats with Magic Indicators as they join a motorway flowing at
60+ at 40-.

I don't even need it (though it would be nice) to be a good enough
to
prove who that stupid bugger was.

I don't think there any 4K Dashcams out there yet to enable the
reading of number plate at 25yds of course seeing what the Red BMW
was doing before it collided with something is probably proof enough
as to what happened.

I've bought a couple of cheap units from Amazon. They work remarkably
well.

I've a cheapy as well. Supposed to be "HD" but that is upscaling and
ARCing the native VGA 640x480 sensor. It's good enough to see what's
going on but you can't read the number plate of a vehicle that has
just overtaken you.

The dark performance surprises me,

Not bad in street lit areas but is strictly limited to the bright
zone of the headlights without street lights.

Purely used as a toy so far.

I have it mainly for the winter to show colleagues when I arrive on
site the conditions up here that didn't stop me.

Now I've had it for a while I'd now want one with WiFi or Bluetooth
so you don't have to remove the camera from the car, or the card from
the camera, to transfer movies to somewhere more accessable.

I also have AutoGuard Dash Cam - Blackbox by Hovan Yoo on the
(Android) phone, that works pretty well. Bung that on a dedicated
phone with a HD camera and you get the GPS based stuff and
WiFi/Bluetooth, needs a mount and dark performance might not be very
good. I'm not sure if it has gapless recording though, ie it drops a
second when ending one x minute recording and starting the next. Sods
law dictates that the crucial event will happen in that gap... The
cheapy is gapless.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:43:14 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:20:12 +0100, Capitol wrote:

I'm just looking for something that will record "it was the stupid
bugger in front's fault"

The prats with Magic Indicators as they join a motorway flowing at
60+ at 40-.

I don't even need it (though it would be nice) to be a good enough
to
prove who that stupid bugger was.

I don't think there any 4K Dashcams out there yet to enable the
reading of number plate at 25yds of course seeing what the Red BMW
was doing before it collided with something is probably proof enough
as to what happened.

I've bought a couple of cheap units from Amazon. They work remarkably
well.

I've a cheapy as well. Supposed to be "HD" but that is upscaling and
ARCing the native VGA 640x480 sensor. It's good enough to see what's
going on but you can't read the number plate of a vehicle that has
just overtaken you.

The dark performance surprises me,

Not bad in street lit areas but is strictly limited to the bright
zone of the headlights without street lights.

Purely used as a toy so far.

I have it mainly for the winter to show colleagues when I arrive on
site the conditions up here that didn't stop me.

Now I've had it for a while I'd now want one with WiFi or Bluetooth
so you don't have to remove the camera from the car, or the card from
the camera, to transfer movies to somewhere more accessable.

I also have AutoGuard Dash Cam - Blackbox by Hovan Yoo on the
(Android) phone, that works pretty well. Bung that on a dedicated
phone with a HD camera and you get the GPS based stuff and
WiFi/Bluetooth, needs a mount and dark performance might not be very
good. I'm not sure if it has gapless recording though, ie it drops a
second when ending one x minute recording and starting the next. Sods
law dictates that the crucial event will happen in that gap... The
cheapy is gapless.

Here's the latest incident recorded on my very cheap (£10 delivered)
Ebay camara
https://youtu.be/CLk7OpgvqYo?t=70



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%