What simple actioncam for insurance/legal purposes.
A friend of mine recently got in an accident with a motorist. The motorist was wrong, but my friend couldn't prove it.
To avoid such situations I'm considering buying one of these actioncams you see today. It's for the purpose of recording my daily commute only, I hope I never have to use it. So image quality isn't that important. Neither does it need a screen. I'm looking for straight forward model, with long recording time. Idealy it overwrites older recordings, so I don't need to take care of that. Is there such a thing? Any recommendations? |
|
|
BLACKBOX™ SENSOR Rideye's BlackBox™ sensors evaluate hundreds of parameters, thousands of times per second. Why? To detect accidents and protect the critical video evidence that might change your life. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 17350311)
I want to know what this means:
The website is too simple... there is no explanation of their "wondrous" features. |
Originally Posted by chaadster
(Post 17350357)
I'm all for skepticism, but even more for thoughtful consideration. Do you not think incorporating accelerometers and GPS seems like pretty basic stuff that would net a lot of data without needing to get into the wondrous realm?
|
You can buy a Garmin virb from PBK for under 150. The rideye looks fine but is a new unproven product that's not shipping yet and having accelerometers detecting a crash seems unnecessary as you'll know when you crashed.
|
Originally Posted by chaadster
(Post 17350357)
I'm all for skepticism, but even more for thoughtful consideration. Do you not think incorporating accelerometers and GPS seems like pretty basic stuff that would net a lot of data without needing to get into the wondrous realm?
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 17350374)
Speaking of skepticism, any idea of number of the actual instances where bike cam videos and associated "data" have successfully been used by a cyclist in an accident investigation to "prove" anything for insurance or legal purposes?
|
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 17350407)
Gee, did it say that on the web site? I didn't recall reading of either "accelerometers or GPS." All I read was "sensors" with no explanation of what sort of sensors, what data is captured, or what the sensors actually do. For all I know they could be heat sensors or light sensors. GPS? really? Please point me to that text.
|
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 17350663)
Does that mean there is evidence that a single bicycle mounted video device provided the user any legal/insurance protection? Or just that you think it must be so?
i don't understand how you can even argue this point. After an accident one of the first things you should be doing is looking for witnesses. Sadly, in many cases witnesses are not available so video evidence would be the next best thing. Do you believe an insurance adjuster wouldn't accept video evidence? That seems like a stretch. Or do you not believe a video would show anything useful? Or perhaps you believe that everyone is honest and that all distracted drivers texting on their phones immediately fess up when an officer shows up to take their statement? |
Some folks have no sense...
Moving along to something with a purpose, I'll also suggest the OP take a look at the Mobius ActionCam, which will not as simple as some of the others, is popular, immediately available, and inexpensive enough that it if proves to be too fussy, you're not out a substantial amount of cash. Also, easy shipping to EU: https://www.mobius-actioncam.com |
Judge for yourselves if a camera can be useful:
This is the video Metric Man posted that made his case open-and-shut. What to believe, your own lying eyes or Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofski? |
I just deleted a bunch of useless bickering that derailed the thread. I-Like-To-Bike and achoo, please leave this thread.
CbadRider Forum Admin |
If you had just one of these cameras, would it make more sense to mount it on the front or the rear of a bike?
|
Originally Posted by Route 66
(Post 17352159)
If you had just one of these cameras, would it make more sense to mount it on the front or the rear of a bike?
|
Originally Posted by Metric Man
(Post 17352229)
Rear. The front camera missed everything important. BTW, for the record, the insurance company didn't even dicker when they were presented with the video. They wrote a check for the full value of the policy. I could have saved the attorney fees but I wasn't sure how this would go...if I had to do it over I would go it by myself.
|
Originally Posted by gregf83
(Post 17350708)
i don't understand how you can even argue this point. After an accident one of the first things you should be doing is looking for witnesses. Sadly, in many cases witnesses are not available so video evidence would be the next best thing.
If one chooses to record their own actions for self protection, its best be sure that their actions will stand scrutiny for the length of the video without editing. |
Apparently one of my posts, and one of only three posts with info directly relevant to the OP's question, got deleted, so let me resupply the link to the Fly6 cam: Home | Cycliq
|
Go Pro is getting pretty cheap..............
|
does anyone have any experience with a HD camera that can zoom in on driver's faces?
|
Metric Man, I am very glad you survived that, and I'm very happy to hear that the driver stopped. Looks like he got distracted and veered into the shoulder at the wrong time. Did any criminal charges come out of this?
As far as cameras, I'm also seriously considering getting one. There have been a few serious collisions in my area in the past couple of months with no witnesses except for those involved. Every time, the driver claims that the bicyclist suddenly changed direction and hit the vehicle. I think a helmet cam would be the best solution for one camera; otherwise getting a front and rear is good. Even though hits from the rear are the most likely to cause injury, hooks are much more common. A helmet cam would capture the hook and which direction the rider's head was facing. The Rideye looks good, but I'd really like to know more information about it. Do the sensors sense heavy braking or evasive maneuvers? What makes it different than just a normal camera? |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 17350374)
Speaking of skepticism, any idea of number of the actual instances where bike cam videos and associated "data" have successfully been used by a cyclist in an accident investigation to "prove" anything for insurance or legal purposes?
I disagree that having it on the rear is more valuable than on the front. Clearly, this the rear camera is the one that helped @Metric Man, but being hit from behind in the day time is much rarer than being hooked or hit from the front. If you're playing the odds, I think you should put it on the front. |
Originally Posted by Metric Man
(Post 17352229)
Rear. The front camera missed everything important. BTW, for the record, the insurance company didn't even dicker when they were presented with the video. They wrote a check for the full value of the policy. I could have saved the attorney fees but I wasn't sure how this would go...if I had to do it over I would go it by myself.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.