Question about dash Cams

We have been looking at dash cameras. You never know when you need one. The ones we are looking at is a dual camera (inside and out) with 260 deg sweep with mic and GPS. Any one have one or use one like that. The ones we are looking at is around the 100.00 mark, just enough for protection when someone happens to rear end us or sideswipe our vehicle when getting tractor parts. I think it would come in handy for a number of things,instead of he said she said stuff. What do you think?

LOU

(quoted from post at 02:17:50 01/02/15) We have been looking at dash cameras. You never know when you need one. The ones we are looking at is a dual camera (inside and out) with 260 deg sweep with mic and GPS. Any one have one or use one like that. The ones we are looking at is around the 100.00 mark, just enough for protection when someone happens to rear end us or sideswipe our vehicle when getting tractor parts. I think it would come in handy for a number of things,instead of he said she said stuff. What do you think?

LOU

Click to expand...

https://dashcamtalk.com/

You must always declare that audio recording is occurring. Clandestine audio recording is a federal offense... darn wire-tap laws...

I agree that they are handy. They were used locally to prove a police officer wrote a ticket to someone for running a stop sign, when it never happened.

I know 'here', to the best of my knowledge, the entire country is "one party consent", meaning that one party IN the conversation must be aware that the conversation is being recorded, that one person being you. To the best of my knowledge, and according to this article, Wisconsin is a "one party consent" state in the case that there is no expectation of privacy.
Untitled URL Link

Every car in Russia has one. Insurance against corrupt cops. Of course, you do run the risk of your own camera's recording being used against you.

Minnesota Jon can chime in he runs a couple of them.
I want one with a remote second camera for the rear of the truck.

I have a 4sight dual cam dash cam. It worked good til this week, now it's saying the storage card is bad. Haven't gotten a new card yet to see if that really is the problem or not. DO NOT get anything by Top Dawg, I've had several and all failed realatively soon. I also don't like my dual cam since the one is to focused to do any good. Also most dash cams are not compatable with tablet computers so if that's how you wish to view them your out of luck. Mine would work ok on my laptop, but it won't work with my tablet, so no more sharing of videos online til I get a new laptop.

I want one for that one time you might catch a viral video.

That squirrel's epic charge across 3 lanes of 65MPH traffic, only to disappear under my truck with a familiar "thump-thump," mere inches from safety, would have had millions of hits.

im beginning to wonder if recording anything is worth the trouble. A neighbor was getting hit by thieves over and over. He set up some trail cams and has pictures of the perps. the police say that they cant do anything becAUSE pictures cant be used in court as evidence. That makes me wonder why the police want lapel cameras, which also should not be permisable evidence. isnt that the same?

Ran a "Top Dawg" dual cam (front/back), w audio, unit for about 2 years, it became a pain after awhile. Insurance company was "iffy" on it's evidentiary value. Also had poor instruction manual and was very difficult to navigate through it's internal menus; did have extremely good picture quality and 32G micro SD card storage. YMMV.

(quoted from post at 16:30:17 01/02/15) Ran a "Top Dawg" dual cam (front/back), w audio, unit for about 2 years, it became a pain after awhile. Insurance company was "iffy" on it's evidentiary value. Also had poor instruction manual and was very difficult to navigate through it's internal menus; did have extremely good picture quality and 32G micro SD card storage. YMMV.

Click to expand...

That's because they really haven't been around long enough to establish precedence in court cases.

I do know the insurance industry was vary slow to adopt and still doesn't like digital photos. They are too easy to alter by almost anyone with any experience with a photo program. Any question about the digital image has to be answered by an expert and often 2 experts won't agree. So if something winds up in court any pictures may not be accepted by a jury as being unaltered. When I was an adjuster long after digital cameras were available most insurance companies wanted film photos for that reason.

Picture this (pun intended), you are on a jury where someone has be accused of insurance fraud. So far the evidence is iffy. So the prosecutor start entering digital images as evidence and has an expert claim they are un touched good photos. The defendant's lawyer calls his expert who says I think they were altered and points out why. Now keeping in mind "no reasonable doubt" are you going to vote to convict? Now add in that a lot of folks think insurance companies are evil and anyone who beats them is a hero. Now this guy, who most likely is guilty walks just because the evidence is called into question.

That doesn't mean digital images can't help convict, it means that a competent defense lawyer with a client with deep enough pockets can call into question another so called expert.

Rick

Thanks for the link! I wasn't aware it was a state thing. I do know that in PA, some crazy things have happened- just a few miles from me.