First Accident Caught on A139 Pro

[CuriousGeorge]

I may be the unfortunate first victim of an accident that was caught on a A139Pro 2-channel. All the occupants involved are OK. The car did not do so well.

I cannot post details or the video as this is an ongoing legal case, however the Police said the quality was excellent, the best they have seen. The video was recorded using H.264, and they were able to view it easily. The video was shared using Google Drive, they did not need the original. The A139Pro's microphone captured my voice reading the plate number out loud as the car drove away, out of the camera's view. Thank you dashcamtalk members for suggesting this. Only issue was that the rear camera could not get a clear image of the driver's face before they drove away, but I doubt any dash cam could do that when a car has a tinted windshield. The Police used other means to find the driver and charge them with many laws that were broken which I cannot disclose.

This person faces thousands of dollars in fines, damages, points and even jail time for the specific charges that were filed thanks to the A139Pro.

Tell everyone: If you are in an accident, do not run away. These days there are so many cameras everywhere, they will find you and the consequences will be even worse.

 

[DT MI]

Only issue was that the rear camera could not get a clear image of the driver's face before they drove away, but I doubt any dash cam could do that when a car has a tinted windshield.

Glad that everyone is OK - broken cars can be fixed a lot easier than broken people.

When things get back to normal try using a CPL on the rear camera. Reduces windshield glare considerably.

 

[Dashmellow]

Happy to hear that everyone is OK and that the dash cam did more or less everything that a dash cam is supposed to do in those circumstances. This was a perfect example of why we all have our dash cams.

 

[SafetyStealth]

Glad all are okay.

Agree with the comment about CPL, you might also try a rear telephoto Dashcam.

 

[OldEastSider]

I'm so sorry to hear of your accident and relieved precious lives are intact. That's by far the most important thing. That you were able to read out loud the license plate shows amazing presence of mind at an awful moment. I absolutely detest hit and run drivers and hope the other party faces the full force of the law. Your A139 Pro will pay for itself many times over. It looks like it already has. Well done and best wishes.

 

[kamkar]

Nice everything is fine, and nice you remembered to not trust in the dashcam being able to capture a plate.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

I can now share the details of this case, since the court and sentencing has finally concluded.

If you want to keep track, I am going to number the laws broken by this driver in-line of this story.

Its sort of a basic story of being stopped on a red light, light turns green, and I rolled up with everyone and the light turned red and stopped. I was the first car at this point...but it gets complicated after that.

The car behind me drove into the paved median to try to get around me, but just as I was slowing down the car drove back into my lane and rear ended my car without even touching the brakes.

(1) Incorrect use of emergency lane

(2) Changing lanes without a turn signal

(3) Careless Driving resulting in an accident

The speed displayed on the A139 Pro shows that I got launched into a 15 mph jolt. At this point my car was pushed passed the cross walk.

My teenage son in the back seat was not injured. But my teenage son in the front seat slammed his head into the B pillar.

Right after the collision the car that hit us started to drive around my car on the left side. It was a white BMW 535i sedan and we contemporaneously called out the plate number which the A139Pro recorded, all 3 of our voices saying it.

(4) Leaving the scene, Hit and Run

By the way the prosecutors and the detective said this was the best thing we did, and we should always remember to record the plate verbally right away, without delay. They also said to record the date and time (more on that later) as well as a description of where you are right now, and whether people are injured.

The driver proceeded through the traffic light, which at this point was red.

(5) Going through a red light

I called 911 and the police called the paramedics. The police took down all of our information but they did not want a copy of the video. They said a detective will call me and I can share it with them later. The paramedics checked out my son but they couldn't confirm he was 100% fine so it was our call if we wanted to go to the hospital. My son said his head hurt, but he thinks he's fine. His head hurt all night and into the next day, but he was fine afterwards.

I called the detective a week later, as instructed by the officer at the scene. The detective confirmed that the car registration is payed, but there is no insurance on file.

(6) Driving without insurance

He went to the address where the car was registered. The women at the door said she did not know this person. Was she lying?

The detective called me and told me if he cannot find the driver, then the case is closed. He cannot charge a car with a offense, and he cannot charge the owner of the car either. He needs to find the driver.

The detective told he was very motivated because of the video from the A139Pro. I suspect in most cases he would not have done so much to this point.

The detective went back the next day and drove down the street and found the car parked at a different house. The plate matched what sons and I had recorded and the car description matched the car in the video and there was minor damage in the front of the car.which matched the video.

The women in the house both said he never comes here anymore. So....(and this is my favorite part) the detective seized the car and had it towed back to the impound lot!

It costs $100 per day to have it stored in the impound lot, and $500 to have it towed.

Meanwhile the detective still needed to confirm the driver. So he asked me if saw the driver, did the driver ever get out, or if we can zoom in on the face on the A139Pro video.

Well, the problem is driver had a tinted windshield and he never got out of the car before running away. We could not see his face when he drove next to us, the side windows were dark too. The rear camera that comes with the A139Pro doesn't come with a polarizing lens, and although it was daytime, the angle of the sun was low and it was to the left, (90 degrees from the camera). My car has a LEGAL rear tinted window, and further analyis showed the the driver is sitting in a very reclined position, so all of this combined makes the driver's face completely disappear in the video.

(7) Tinted windshield
(8) Illegally dark tint on side windows.

As I was trying to crop the face of the driver, which was impossible because of the tint and all I could see was that he had a white shirt, I also noticed a child in the passenger area playing on the dash board.

(9) Child under 12 in front seat.

During the red light the child was clearly restless, and decided to press their face and lips into the windshield. This is physically impossible if you're wearing a seatbelt.

(10) passenger not wearing seatbelt.

I asked the detective if he could pull the video from the intersection, or the other intersections he drove through after driving away, or even the toll both that we had to drive through just before this intersection.

Just before the intersection is a toll both with a camera. The detective told me to get that he has to go through some inter agency hoops, but he did it. The detective pulled the photos from the toll booth and shared them with me. The photo was taken 3 minutes before the collision. The photo clearly shows the plate, the model of the BMW from the rear. In the front view we can see the lower half of the face of the driver and the same white shirt. It seems the driver was very reclined in his seat, that's why only half a face came up and that probably contributed to why the A139Pro could not capture his face either. The top of the child's head is clearly visible in the floor area of the passenger seat since the camera was overhead and the seat belt on the passenger seat was buckled to an empty seat to keep the seat alarm from going on. The driver also had no seat belt and he was holding is cell phone.

(11) no seat belt
(12) using cell phone while driving

3 days later the registered owner came to claim the car at the police impound lot with his lawyer. The detective could only speak to his lawyer and not him directly. The driver had to pay $300 for impound fees, $500 for the towing fee and he had to immediately show that he has reinstated his insurance.

The detective determined that the owner looks like the person in the toll booth photo, and charged him with 3 offenses:
(A) Hit and Run
(B) Driving without insurance
(C) Careless Driving

The detective told me that I will get a subpoena to show up in court as a witness

- Max penalty for a hit and run with no serious injuries is $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail. No points.
- Max fine for no insulin $500 and no points.
- Max fine for careless driving is $500 and no points.

4 months later me and my 2 sons got subpoenas. I attended court via Zoom without my sons. The detective was there as well. The prosecutors were recommending a $250 fine, and a 12 week driving course, which seemed very lenient to me, but I'm not a lawyer. The defense filed for a continuance because the prosecutors did not provide a witness list nor did they provide the evidence for discovery, so the court date was postponed by a month.

In retrospect, the lawyer should have just accepted this penalty instead of filing for a continuance. Little did the defense know what they were up against. It only got worse.

1 month later we had Zoom Court again. This time both sons had a day off from school so they attended with me. The prosecutors had increased recommended penalty only slightly $250 fine, $400 in court fees, and a 12 week driving course. This time the prosecutors filed for continuance because they wanted some sort of an affidavit concerning the child in the other driver's car.

Meanwhile the prosecutors called me.

Viofo team, this part will be of interest of you.

The prosecutors said they have a problem because the time stamp on toll booth photo, (which the detective can confirm matches the registered owner) and the time stamp on the A139Pro are a difference of 1 hour. It looked like the toll booth photo was taken 1 hour AFTER the video from the A139Pro and based on that it's nearly impossible to prove the person at the toll booth is the same person at the scene of the accident. I had to explain that the A139Pro does not automatically adjust for daylight savings time. The prosecutor was very pleased with that explanation because it's only a difference of 3 minutes and he said I would be called to testify the time difference on the video. 3 minutes makes it easier to prove it's the same person, but he asked if I could see the driver, and I said no. He said based on this the defense will try to show the person at the toll booth was not the driver at the scene even though there is only a difference of 3 minutes. The prosecutor still needed confirmation of the driver at the scene of the accident and so they were trying to get an affidavit from the mother of the child to confirm that that the child was at the scene in that car with the driver, which would help to confirm by connection the driver who was caring for the child at the time of the accident.

Viofo, consider solving this problem to provide an option to automatically adjust for daylight savings time.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

Then I pointed to all the other infractions that I've listed above and why he wasn't being charged for any of that. The prosecutor said he is only going after the Hit and Run which is the most egregious. He called it a heinous crime, and he despised when people leave the scene without checking on the safety of the victims. I told him that's fine, but all of this allows the prosecution to build a character of a person who seems to have disregard for the law in general

When I showed him the unbuckled child in the passenger seat in the A139Pro video, he perked up and said he will seek a larger penalty because of this.

He called me back after days later and told me based on the other offenses and the A139 Pro video showing the unbuckled child in the front seat they have increased the recommended penalty yet again. This time $250 fine, $400 court fees, 12 week driving course, 12 month parenting course and 3 months of probation.

The probation was because of the sum of all the associated offenses, and since this person seems to disregard the law, of he does anything bad in those 3 months he would face jail time.

The prosecutor told me he will ask for restitution to pay for my out of pocket expenses too, and the probation can be used to enforce payment of the restitution. When the driver meets with the probation officer, they will regularly be asked, as a condition of their release whether they have paid the restitution.

But, the prosecutor said it's extremely rare that judges grant restitution in a criminal case and I should be prepared not to get any restitution and plan for a civil trial afterwards to get back my expenses.

He said he would ask for restitution if we have a bench trial or a jury trial.

1 month later we were supposed to have Zoom Court a 3rd time.

The night before the prosecutor called me to ask me to show up on person. He felt the defense attorney was going to ask for a jury trial, and I should show up dressed appropriately for court.

Next morning I showed up over 2 hours before the court time so that the prosecutors could prepare me to testify. The detective showed up as well but we were in separate rooms so as to not taint our testimonies.

The prosecution team put the A139Pro videos onto a DVD disc and I had to sign the disc with a sharpie to certify that it is a true copy.

The prosecutor showed me a mug shot of the driver. This was the first time I had seen his face. He was arrested for a crime in the past, and he was acquitted by a jury, so he doesn't have a conviction or a record, but he does have a mug shot.

This just added to the "character" of this guy.

About 90 minutes later we were all sent to the court room early, the defense said they were going plea. When we got to the court room, the prosecution team confirmed the defense was going to plead "no contest" (not guilty, but not completely innocent either). Based on this plea, any victims (me) would be given the opportunity to go on the witness stand and tell the judge all of the hardships this has caused me over the past 6 months..no car for 5 months while it was being repaired, $6100 in repair costs out of pocket, injured son, late to my appointment on the day of the accident, etc.. This was my opportunity to just lay it on thick with all my issues basically "play the victim" in all honesty.

After being tested and grilled to prepare to testify all morning, now I had to switch what I was going to say. So I started to prepare for my "speech"

About 30 minutes of waiting and the prosecutors came to me and said he was going to plead "guilty" and I will not need to testify.

I was confused....what happened?

He was charged with a crime this time, not just a fine.

He was convicted with the crime of Hit and Run, but no jail time, $400 court fees and a 12 week driving course, and the judge dismissed the associate charges of No Insurance and Careless Driving

This was the most severe penalty that was recommended thus far. This crime will be on his permanent record. He will be scrutinized when applying jobs, he will be scrutinized when entering a foreign country. If he ever gets convicted for anything else they will take this prior conviction into consideration and the penalties be more severe.

So why did it change within 30 minutes?

This is the part the Viofo team will like...

The prosecutor reviewed the video with the defense lawyer while me the defendant and the detective were waiting in the court room. The defense said "It's not that bad", he was thinking a jury would acquit, but then the prosecutor pointed out the unbuckled child in the front seat. That's when the defense lawyer folded his cards and gave up. The defense realized that if they push for a jury trial this could turn into a parenting issue, not just a traffic violation and possible loss of custody of the child, or the defendant having to work with a social worker to prove that he is a responsible parent.

The defense decided a guilty plea and a permanent conviction would be better than all of that.

Now, one may think, why did this guy leave the scene?

Well as you can see in this case, if nobody was able to identify his face, it didn't matter if we got his plate, or the video of the car, or finding the physical car or even a matching toll booth photo of his face 3 minutes prior. None of that matters. Since we didn't have a face there was a 50% chance that at jury would acquit him because of reasonable doubt, and since he had good luck with a jury before he was willing to take that chance.

This another reason to get the best rear facing dashcam one can buy. We need the face, not just the plate. Otherwise, like in this case the rear dashcam was almost useless (except for capturing the child). Without a face, according to the prosecutors, he had a very good chance of winning a jury trial.

So if you're a bad guy, tint your windows, recline your seat back, don't get out of the car after the accident and immediately leave the scene. You have a very good chance of the whole thing being dismissed in court.

Another reason that I speculate he left the scene is that he was either under the influence or had a gun or drugs in the car. A conviction for a hit and run is lot better than a conviction for any of the above so staying at the scene was not an option for him. This is only my hypothesis, I have no proof of this.

Since the driver had no insurance at the time, I did not use my insurance to pay for the damages because my "non-insured motorist" would have covered it and my insurance would essentially take the hit. I don't want my insurance to go up, so I paid $6100 for the repairs.

My car's blue book value is lower than the cost of the repairs, however I have been refurbishing it to near showroom condition. For this reason the insurance could have denied the claim to pay for the damages and would have considered it a total loss. I have been offered $15k for this car at car meets, but have refused because it is worth more to me than that. This is another reason why I decided to pay out of pocket for the repairs.

The prosecutor said since we have a guilty plea and a conviction I can file a civil suit against him to get this money. However I am scared to do so. I believe this person is into some really bad stuff and I fear my family or me could be harmed if I sue him.

So that's it, I'll just live the expense. I only have the satisfaction that he was convicted.

The prosecutor confirmed that he has had over 100 hit and run cases this year, 80% are dismissed. This is the first one with a dash cam video. Without the video it would have been dismissed which is what happens to nearly every hit and run case.

Based on this, this is yet another reason why it was worth it for the driver to take a chance and run away. Not to mention if the victim can't see his face through his tinted windows he can't really get prosecuted, the usual fines are not that big(only $250????) and if he had other bad stuff in the car, running away was the best option for him.

In my opinion he had clearly premeditated leaving the scene if he was ever in an accident.

 

[DT MI]

...I did not use my insurance to pay for the damages because my "non-insured motorist" would have covered it and my insurance would essentially take the hit. I don't want my insurance to go up,...

You might want to check with your insurance carrier about this. In my experience losses incurred as a result of criminal activity are treated differently. Of course this could vary from locale to locale but it won't hurt to check.

It could also be that the insurance company would go after him to recoup their loss so there would be satisfaction in that. I had that happen when a tradesman damaged my house and wouldn't pay so I claimed on my home owner's insurance with no impact on my premiums.

 

[Dadi_T]

Just out of curiosity, "passenger not wearing seatbelt".
Is that a driver's fault in USA?

 

[DT MI]

Just out of curiosity, "passenger not wearing seatbelt".
Is that a driver's fault in USA?

In most states - yes. The driver is responsible for the passengers behavior in this regard..

 

[Dadi_T]

Wow, unbelievable!

 

[Dashmellow]

Wow, unbelievable!

Saves lives.

 

[kamkar]

Well if it is kids, you are also responsible for them being seated / secured properly, but otherwise adults here get their own fine for not wearing a belt.
If you let someone else drive your car, you are of course also supposed to make sure he / she have a valid driving license.

 

[0341motormen]

1 month later we were supposed to have Zoom Court a 3rd time.

The night before prosecutor called me to ask me to show up on person. He felt the defense attorney was going to ask for a jury trial, and I should show up dressed appropriately for court.

Next morning I showed up over 2 hours before the court time so that the prosecutors could prepare to testify. The detective showed up as well but we were in separate rooms so as to not taint our testimonies.

The prosecution team put the A139Pro videos onto a DVD disc and I had to sign the disc with a sharpie to certify that it is a true copy.

The prosecutor showed me a mug shot of the driver. This was the first time I had seen his face. He was arrested for a crime in the past, and he was acquitted by a jury, so he doesn't have a conviction or a record, but he does have a mug shot.

This just added the "character" of this guy.

Abot 90 minutes we were all court to the court room early, the defense said they were going plea. When we got to the court room, the prosecution team confirmed the defense was going to plead "no contest" (not guilty, but not completely innocent either). Based on this plea, any victims (me) would be given the opportunity to go on witness stand and tell the judge all of the hardship this has caused me over the past 6 months..no car for 5 months while it was being replied, $6100 in repair costs, injured son, late to my appointment on the day of the accident, etc.. This was my opportunity to just lay it on thick with all my issues basically "play the victim" in all honesty.

After being tested and grilled to prepare to testify lal morning, now I had to switch what I was going to say. So I started to prepare for my "speech"

About 30 minutes of waiting and the prosecutors came to me and said he was going to plead guilty and I will not need to testify.

I was confused what happened?

He was charged with a crime this time, not just a fine.

He was convicted with the crime of Hit and Run, but no jail time, $400 court fees and a 12 week driving course, and the judge dismissed the associate charges of No Insurance and Careless Driving

This was the most severe penalty that was recommended thus far. This crime will be on his permanent record. He will be scrutinized when applying jobs, he will be scrutinized when entering a foreign country. If he ever gets convicted for anything else they will take this prior conviction into consideration and the penalties be more severe.

So why did it change within 30 minutes?

This is the part the Viofo team will like...

The prosecutor reviewed the video with the defense lawyer while me the defendant and 5he detective were waiting in the court room. The defense said "It's not that bad", but then the prosecutor pointed out the unbuckled child in the front see. That's when the defense lawyer.folded his card. The defense realized that if they push for a jury trial this could turn into a parenting issue, possible loss of custody of the child, or the defendant having to work with a social worker to prove that they are a responsible parent.

The defense decided a guilt plea and a permanent conviction would be better than all of that.

Now, one may think, why did this guy leave? Well as you can see in this case, if nobody was able to identify his face, it didn't matter if we got his plate, or the video of the car, or finding the physical car. None of that matters. Since we didn't have a face there was a 50% chance that at jury would acquit him because of reasonable doubt, and since head good luck with a jury before he was willing to take that chance.

Another reason that I speculate is that he was either under the influence or had a gun or drugs in the car. A conviction for a hit and run is aot better than a conviction for any of the above so staying at the scene was not an option for him. This is only my hypothesis, I have no proof of this.
Since the driver had no insurance at the time, I did not use my insurance to pay for the damages because my "non-insured motorist" would have covered it and my insurance would essentially take the hit. I don't want my insurance to go up, so I paid $6100 for the repairs.

The prosecutor said since we have a guilty plea and a conviction, and can file a civil suit against him to get this money. However I am scared to do so. I believe this person is into some really bad stuff and I fear my family or me could be harmed if I sue him.

So that's it, I'll just live either expense. I only have the satisfaction that he was convicted.

The prosecutor confirmed that he has had over 100 hot and run cases this year, this is the first one with a dash cam video. Without the video it would have been dismissed which is what happens to nearly every hit and run case.

Based on this, this is yet another reason why it was worth it for the driver to take a chance and run away. Not to mention if the victim can't see his face through his tinted windows he can't really get prosecuted, the usual fines are not that big(only $250????) and if he had other bad stuff in the car, running away was the best option for him.

In my opinion he had clearly premeditated leaving the scene if he was ever in an accident.

Thank you for taking the. Time to explain this to us sucks that he didn’t have insurance but am glad you and your family are safe , did u have to pay your deductible I assume so because the other driver had no Inusurence did you sue him . Also my parked car was hit and the driver ran caught there plate on radar mode it’s still ongoing . Your very lucky the police in your state made such great effort in most cases they just write A accident report and the hit and run driver gets off Scott free unless there are injury involves then

 

[speedingcheetah]

I was told on here that Viofo cams adjust the time automatically. Cause they sync with the GPS satellite.
I set the offset for me -5.
So, next time i power it up, it should update yes?

 

[Dashmellow]

I was told on here that Viofo cams adjust the time automatically. Cause they sync with the GPS satellite.
I set the offset for me -5.
So, next time i power it up, it should update yes?

Yeah, the GPS sets the time but unlike a smartphone the camera doesn't know what time zone you're in. I wish they could. I wonder if LTE cloud cams can do that?

 

[speedingcheetah]

Yeah, the GPS sets the time but unlike a smartphone the camera doesn't know what time zone you're in. I wish they could. I wonder if LTE cloud cams can do that?

The Settings literally have a time zone setting. By setting this value you’re telling the camera what time zone you’re in. For me central time zone is GMT -5.

Since this is a hard set static value, then I would assume if you travel to a different time zone, it would not automatically adjust.

However, I am not sure how daylight savings time works when it comes to the GPS satellite signal.
Is the GMT satellite signal always the same regardless of time zone? And the Offset setting is what locally adjust the time on the camera? Meaning the user must change the offset number forward or back for daylight savings time?

I have an atomic clock that I set the time zone on and I never have to for daylight savings time it automatically does. But is that a different satellite signal than the GPS won the dash cam receives?

 

[DT MI]

...Since this is a hard set static value, then I would assume if you travel to a different time zone, it would not automatically adjust....

Correct, it does not automatically adjust.

...Is the GMT satellite signal always the same regardless of time zone? And the Offset setting is what locally adjust the time on the camera? Meaning the user man change the offset number forward or back for daylight savings time?...

Correct again.

Just did all my cameras today. The Vantrue S1-Pro I have syncs to my phone so all I have to do for it is just connect via WiFi and it will grab the time from my phone which automatically adjusts for DST. However, if I don't connect it will be an hour off so it's not truly automatic.

 

[Dashmellow]

The Settings literally have a time zone setting. By setting this value you’re telling the camera what time zone you’re in. For me central time zone is GMT -5.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am certainly well aware that the time zones are manually adjusted on dash cams. However, in a smartphone, it will automatically know your time zone based on your location and since the phone is connected to the network it will also know your time settings including daylight savings time. This is why you don't need to adjust your phone for daylight savings time. I was asking if LTE enabled dash cams that offer cloud connectivity can do this since they connect to servers that would have this information and this could be matched against your camera's GPS data and internal clock.