The M4 concept's grille is just gross.Originally Posted by Freude am Fahren
Fair point on comparison with the older BMWs. Go back to the famous 328 of the 20s and you'll see a really tall set of kidney grilles.
The M4 concept's grille is just gross.
Fair point on comparison with the older BMWs. Go back to the famous 328 of the 20s and you'll see a really tall set of kidney grilles.
Why truckers use dash cams <--- Open for video
Mack vs Car
I've been meaning to buy one (or two) dashcams since I first started seeing those Russian dashcam videos online. Thought I'd get one when I got a newer car, but just like everything else, they're expensive. I'd like one pointing out the rear window also, with as many people as I see blatantly staring at their smart phones while driving these days. People don't even try to hide it anymore! When I look in my rearview mirror and see eyelids instead of eyes in stop-and-go traffic, I get scared (and angry).
Up-front dashcam expense is totally worth the fuss for if someone rear-ends you or does something really stupid that causes you major difficulties.
If you do any towing a dash cam is a must with the way these mouthbreathers drive and pull in front of you.
Actually, if you do any DRIVING, a dashcam is a must.
I've been hesitant to get a dash cam. If you're involved in an incident and feel that the video may be unflattering to you, you are not allowed to erase it. If you do, and someone sues you based on the incident and it's known you deleted the video, the judge will instruct the jury to assume whatever was on the video was a detriment to you and favorable to your opposing party. You could swear under oath that you didn't record video, but perjury has its own consequences.
It's a double edged sword. I haven't caused a multi-car accident since 1999 but who knows what may come.
I was actually thinking about dashcams this morning as I drove into work instead of taking the train. Light, Christmas-week traffic is a nice change from the usual bumper-to-bumper grind at 5 - 10 mph the whole way. Nothing happened that made me wish for one, but while sitting still, I noticed a little ledge under my rear window and thought I could put some velcro there for a rear-facing camera.
Image from google below. My interior is dark grey so I think a strip of velcro and the camera itself might be a little less noticeable than in this picture with the tan interior.
And just being silly for a minute, maybe I should get my rear window tinted darker than factory tint and then when someone is tailgating me or otherwise driving like a jerk, I could slide open the rear window to reveal the camera and maybe a colorful sign saying "Smile! You're on camera!"
Would this be based on someone seeing the dashcam in your car at the scene of the accident?
If so, this is surprising to me. Your video is your video to do with as you please, isn't it? It's not theirs.
Related to this, I think: Can police and others (attorneys involved in a case, for example) get court orders to confiscate videos such as from home doorbell cameras and business security cameras? It seems to me laws (in the USA) would be similar for all privately-owned cameras, but I haven't tried to learn about this yet.
Or is it more like what dodint describes above?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, both the defendant and the police officer at the scene of the accident report seeing a dashcam in the plaintiff's vehicle, but he refuses to share the footage. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions from this."
Last edited by George; December 23rd, 2019 at 08:09 AM.
This is in the civil context, self-incrimination considerations in the criminal context may have different outcomes. As a party to a lawsuit you're subject to discovery in accordance with the rules of evidence for that jurisdiction. The easiest way to know to request dash cam video is to simply see the dash cam at the scene and make a note to request the video during pre-trial discovery. Another way would be to ask the opposing party during discovery, using interrogatories (written questions to an opposing party) or at a deposition. These questions in either case are asked under oath, and the perjury penalties can be harsh; in other contexts it has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and suspension/disbarment of the advising attorney. See this case here about destroying Facebook posts/pictures that were requested in discovery: https://blog.x1discovery.com/2011/11...-legal-career/
In Colorado, specifically, they allow for the adverse inference I mentioned earlier:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 lists outcomes for failing to disclose:Adverse Inference: Colorado recognizes adverse inference as a sanction for intentional destruction of evidence.
The state of mind of the party that destroys the evidence is an important consideration in determining whether
adverse inference is the appropriate sanction. In addition, in order to remedy the evidentiary imbalance created
by the loss or destruction of the evidence, an adverse inference may be appropriate even in the absence of a
showing of bad faith. Id. Special caution must be exercised to ensure that the inference is commensurate with
the information that was reasonably likely to have been contained in the destroyed evidence. Pfantz v. K-Mart
Corp., 85 P.3d 564 (Colo. App. 2003).
There are rules that balance privacy against disclosure, but the expectation of privacy with a dash cam is pretty low and I wouldn't expect a judge to rule the dash cam is private.(c) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit.
(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:
(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure;
(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and
(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi).
As for the home camera stuff, a doorbell is generally facing outward given that is the entire purpose of them. Like the dash cam it would be unlikely they would be protected by a concern for privacy and would be discoverable in civil litigation, and the party that owned the door bell camera would have a duty to preserve that evidence.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, generally directed or specific to your situation.
Thanks! Very interesting. I had not considered any of this yet. Pros and cons, like anything else, I guess.
Maybe it's time to research stealth-mount dashcams, like the old (and maybe still current) stealth radar detectors people would put behind their grilles instead of on the dashboard, suction-cupped to windshields, or hanging from rearview mirrors.
Mostly I just don't want my "new" car to get damaged. I didn't care about dashcams when I drove an inexpensive older car for many years, but every time I browse Reddit these days, all the dashcam gifs and videos remind me of all the crazy stuff that can and does happen in this age of ever-more distracted driving.
It does occur to me that a dashcam might be helpful in tempering one's own passions behind the wheel as well documenting the misdeeds of others.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
