I'm thinking of Roadhawk style systems which give speed and gps data as well as video

[i tried to add a Poll but failed miserably ]

Would you consider a system such as the Roadhawk RH1?

1. Yes, but I'm a gadget freak

2. Yes, good investment, worth it to protect no claims discount etc

3. Yes, but only if the insurance company provided the system or gave a considerable premium discount for fitting it.

4. No, too "big brother"

5. No, could be incriminating!

6. No, just too expensive

7. No, don't see the point.

Edited 4 November, 201015 yr by 2SkodaFamily

Depends how often I went dogging

I believe there's all sorts of issues using it anywhere other than on your drive, relating to use of CCTV in public places. AIUI, in theory you'd to display need these when driving:

...with all relevant details on display. But that may be Urban Myth...

FWIW, I doubt very much it would affect your insurance premium unless your terms specifically require you to have it.

FWIW, I doubt very much it would affect your insurance premium unless your terms specifically require you to have it.

That's sort of the point of the questions.

I called my insurers (my car and SWMBOs) and both said they wouldn't discount.

But - having the camera fitting would have to "calm" the driving of even the most careful among us, which from the point of view of the insurance company, that on its own has to be a benefit to them. In addition they won't have to argue over who was where and at what speed. They would be able to defend more claims and not share blame just because it's your word against theirs.

I know the boss of the UK company that sells Roadhawk is trying to negotiate with insurance companies to offer discounts. I guess you could call this a bit of market research on his/their behalf.

...with all relevant details on display. But that may be Urban Myth...

Only if it was operated by a commercial entity - as a private individual you don't.

But - having the camera fitting would have to "calm" the driving of even the most careful among us

Unless the "Big Brother" effect kicks in and you become accustomed to the presence of the cameras such that they no longer influence your behaviour. Lots of busses are fitted with CCTV, but you still see some demonstrations of truely shocking driving.

I've concidered it for a few times now, even if it's never used i think if you were ever in an accident which wasn't your fault a video of the accident would help insurers and the courts loads!

It makes sense for insurers to support things like this, it'll make their life easier. They do in the US!

Also, for example, last night i came down a slip road to enter the A1, gaining speed, as i rounded the final corner there was a black punto reversing up the slip road. I'm sure stuff like this would also come in handy with reporting dodgy driving from other road users etc.

I dont think it would calm peoples driving though, as i know personally nobody would be getting hold of footage unless there was an accident..

Kev

Edited 4 November, 201015 yr by Jabbasport

Since I've completely messed up setting up a poll, could someone else please have a stab? it'd be interesting to see at a glance how the numbers pan out on this.

thanks

I dont think it would calm peoples driving though, as i know personally nobody would be getting hold of footage unless there was an accident..

Wouldn't you take fewer risks if you knew that everything was recorded, in case it all went pete tong?

Wouldn't you take fewer risks if you knew that everything was recorded, in case it all went pete tong?

Depends who kept the record. If it's the driver, then all he/she has to do is wipe the offending file or turn the camera off...

Only if it was operated by a commercial entity - as a private individual you don't.

This chap seems to think differently, and he's got two!

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/178355-in-car-cctv/page__view__findpost__p__2157102

This chap seems to think differently, and he's got two!

There might be specific details about the setup which make it a requirement...if it's being used for insurance purposes, or it's a commercial vehicle, etc. then they may well be a requirement, but it doesn't apply to individuals...after all, what would you write on the stickers to disclose who was operating it?

Depends who kept the record. If it's the driver, then all he/she has to do is wipe the offending file or turn the camera off...

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Kev

As far as I can tell from a quick Google, the key seems to be that evidence gathered WITHOUT a warning sign being displayed may not be admissible in a criminal court. So probably suitable for proving fault in an accident, (civil liability, which appears to be what the OP is asking about) but no good as a means of catching thieves (criminal law, which presumably is why the guy I linked to in post #10 has them...)

but no good as a means of catching thieves (criminal law, which presumably is why the guy I linked to in post #10 has them...)

Although it seemed good enough to prosecute the "cat dumping woman" and AFAIK there were no CCTV signs displayed to show she was being recorded.

Chris

Although it seemed good enough to prosecute the "cat dumping woman" and AFAIK there were no CCTV signs displayed to show she was being recorded.

Chris

She was fined, as she committed a CIVIL offence - as per my last post...

She was fined, as she committed a CIVIL offence - as per my last post...

Hmmm - I'd assumed it wasn't as the judge had the power to hand out 6 months in prison which is not applicable to civil offences!

"Bale, who appeared close to tears in court and admitted a charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, was spared the maximum penalty of six months in prison or a £20,000 fine as the district judge Caroline Goulborn acknowledged the "vilification" she had suffered."

Chris

Ah, so that's where it comes in (or rather doesn't) - she pleaded guilty, and so therefore no evidence needed to be presented by the prosecution. Although as a bit of research has informed me that 'causing unnecessary suffering' is a summary offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (therefore up to 6M / GBP5000), I don't know where your report got 20k from...

Ah, the Grauniad seems to be the only source quoting that figure - 'nuff said!

Anyway, back OT...