Minor Hit & Run - Recorded on 7 cameras

[M---]

But also, here in the US many states only require a rear plate

The lack of a front plate in some state has always baffled me.

 

[TonyM]

Almost 12 months after the minor accident last December, and faced with a minor claims court appearance next month, the other party has finally admitted liability after my video evidence was re-submitted to them. My solicitors have recovered all costs, including my £150 excess and more than £1000 repair bill for my insurers. Although it is nice to have the £150 back, I mostly wanted to fight this on principle.

Initially my insurance company said the most likely outcome was 50:50 settlement in such cases. The other driver's statement actually claimed I was negligent, in that I:
- Encroached onto the Defendant's side of the road and collided with her vehicle
- Travelled too close to the Defendant's vehicle
- Failed to brake in time, or at all
- Failed to manage, steer or otherwise control my vehicle so as to avoid colliding with the Defendant's vehicle
- Failed to observe and heed the presence of the Defendant's correctly positioned vehicle
- Failed to have any sufficient regard for the Defendant
- Failed to manage, steer or otherwise control my vehicle so as to avoid the collision
- Caused the collision where by the exercise of proper driving care and skill should and would have avoided the collision

Of her own driving, she claimed:
- As the Claimant passed the Defendant he collided with the Defendant's correctly proceeding vehicle
- The Defendant steered her vehicle to the left in order to avoid the Claimant's vehicle

Thankfully my solicitors agreed that my video evidence showed her claims to be completely false, and were able to convince her solicitors accordingly.

Here's a short clip of the incident:

I should also mention that she did not stop at the scene. It was only through having dashcam video that I could report her number plate to the police, who tracked her down so we could exchange details and start any insurance claim and legal proceedings.

 

[jokiin]

She hit the wrong guy to be able to lie her way out it, nice to see a good result

 

[kamkar]

She was no where where she should be, driving in the UK at least
look like a phone junkie out of place, if nothing like that she is a very veery bad driver.

 

[SawMaster]

Hurrah for @TonyM Good job in sticking with it on principle
This is exactly why I want my cams and it shows that they can definitely turn things in your favor when an incident occurs. People can lie or have distorted views of a matter but a cam's evidence is unquestionable and unbiased. I think her solicitors knew with that many images showing no fault from Tony, there was nothing they could do except increase their own losses by trying to fight against the unwinnable. I'm sure she wasn't happy about that but I don't see that as having any relevance here

Phil

 

[TonyM]

She hit the wrong guy to be able to lie her way out it, nice to see a good result

There was a moment about 3 months ago when I started wondering "What is the point of having cameras" since the insurance and legal systems seemed to be geared up for 50:50 settlement despite the evidence available to them. That's when I realised that for such a relatively small amount at stake, the solicitors and insurers would not have much interest in my case. The only person it mattered to was myself. In the end I'm glad I stuck with it.

 

[Nigel]

Any legal action against her for the hit and run or the false reporting?

I wondered that, but since it never went to court I doubt there is anything that can be done about the false claims and since she admitted the incident to the police within 24 hours she didn't actually commit any crime. If it had gone to court and the false claims made under oath then she could have been in serious trouble, but they probably had no intention of actually attending court, they were just hoping that Tony's side would give up and accept 50/50 to save time - time costs money.

Why did her side decide to employ solicitors to fight it? I would have thought that after seeing the video it was an obvious waste of money...

 

[TonyM]

Why did her side decide to employ solicitors to fight it? I would have thought that after seeing the video it was an obvious waste of money...

It seemed to take a while for my insurers to pass the video to my solicitors (in the end I sent them another copy) and then for that to go to the defendant's solicitor. For the first 6 months there was no response from the other party, except to say they denied responsibility. Only after court proceedings were started did they come up with a witness statement. I think they did not bother to view the video evidence until the final hour when my solicitor made a final demand for full 100% repayment.

 

[TonyM]

As a little extra, I received another cheque in the post last week from my solicitors for £150 to cover my uninsured out-of-pocket expenses. My insurer also refunded £36 on my annual premium by changing the status of my claim to 'non fault'. In total, having usable video evidence of this incident has recovered more than £300 costs and helped to minimise insurance premium costs for me and my partner. That's possibly less than the value of the cameras in the car, but at least I have peace of mind knowing they will record evidence again should I need it.

 

[WeedeaterDM]

I was not as lucky with my insurance premium. After my accident, it shot up 30% even though they know I was not at fault. So now my annual is $1,600 for the Hyundai and $800 for the Jeep. They were able to recover everything from the other persons insurance and even more from the sale of the wrecked car. So my insurance company made money on the case and raised my rates. It's a scam here in Florida I tell ya.

 

[Nigel]

I was not as lucky with my insurance premium. After my accident, it shot up 30% even though they know I was not at fault. So now my annual is $1,600 for the Hyundai and $800 for the Jeep. They were able to recover everything from the other persons insurance and even more from the sale of the wrecked car. So my insurance company made money on the case and raised my rates. It's a scam here in Florida I tell ya.

I think insurance should go up if you get involved in accidents, even if it is not your fault!

It means that those of us who avoid putting ourselves at risk and who are good at predicting other peoples bad driving and thus avoid getting involved, or who know how to use their anti-lock braking systems, or who concentrate properly on driving, or who just don't visit places where accidents are common, get to pay less for our insurance

Some people create a lot of accidents that are legally not their fault, it is right that they should pay more for their insurance.

Some people have good lawyers who can prove accidents are not their fault even though they clearly are - they should pay more for insurance too.

Not saying that any of this applies to you, but if the people who often get involved in accidents that are not their fault have to pay a lot more then we have to accept that those of us who occasionally get involved in accidents will occasionally have to pay a little more.

$1,600 for a Hyundai seems a lot to me, Hyundai here aren't particularly expensive or quick? And especially when you have a multi-vehicle discount, but maybe it reflects the increased risk of accidents or increased legal costs in the USA. I just paid £285 for my reasonably quick and modified MG, and that is without any multi-car discounts, seems much more reasonable.

 

[SawMaster]

Many crashes can be avoided, but some can't. If you could have clearly avoided the crash as an average driver would have been expected to have done, then there is some validity to your premiums being raised. But if there's any question of that it's unfair and wrong for you to be paying more for what you couldn't avoid. But it can still happen, and here in SC it's done much the same way.

The real problem is that with car insurance, we're being forced to pay for everyone else, not yourself alone. And if you want that insurance coverage to protect you directly, then you have to pay even more. So a person who drives a low-value car and never incurs an insurer's liability gets completely ripped off while those who can afford to drive expensive cars and occasionally crash them get to have someoneelse pay for most of the expenses they incurred by choice.

Here in the US at least, you cannot insure someone else. Not for injury, not for ilness, not for death, not for anything except cars. It seems the rest of the world is the same. Yet we've been conditioned to see this obvious paradox as being right and proper when it really isn't. What it does is make things easy for the insurers and enhance their profits at the expense of the general populace. IMHO there should never be an insuring of others allowed, and that includes cars. There's a way such a system could be worked out with it being entirely fair for everyone but such sanity is beyond the comprehension of governments. All we can do is pay whatever they ask or move to somewhere that the rates are lower as we continue to get ripped off. So much wrong in the world but some things will never change

Phil

 

[WeedeaterDM]

Insurance rates here in Florida are outrageous for both car and home. Many don't have home insurance due to the high cost. Yet I find my $1,400 a year for the home reasonable compared to my car. One trooper friend told me about a quarter of the accidents he investigates, the at fault driver doesn't have insurance and a quarter of those no license. This where we have "uninsured motorist" coverage come into play, not cheap but needed.

The insurance companies also adjust for many other things, some are miles driven per year and type of use like daily commute. The Hyundai takes me to and from work at 50 miles a day, the Jeep gets maybe 1,000 miles a year. I also read a news release recently saying we here in Orlando hit number one for in the country for angriest drivers. I can understand some is that we have tourists from around the world coming here to visit all the theme parks we have. Us locals driving among these idiots get plenty of practice avoiding accidents. Driving a big truck in the tourist district is one of the hardest places I have driven, and get the same feedback from the long distance drivers. But some are hard to avoid like when I was stopped and rear ended by a woman texting, my insurance went up 15% on this one. Then there was a kid intentionally caused one by passing and slamming on his brakes to make me rear end him. He ended up getting arrested for insurance fraud. With the many different type vehicles I drive regularly, I have found that similar type vehicles with anti-lock brakes will take longer to stop than the ones without. So I feel the ABS is for those that don't know how to use their brakes properly and need technology to compensate. Either way, I still keep much more space behind the vehicle I follow than the driving schools say to have, makes for an easier time driving.

Getting late, must eat.

 

[TonyM]

I think insurance should go up if you get involved in accidents, even if it is not your fault!

I tend to agree, as that's just how they calculate risk. Even if someone hits your parked car and leaves a note admitting full liability, your own insurance will still go up since you left your car in an at-risk place.

My insurance went up after this incident. The amount of increase was reduced after the change of status to non-fault, but it's still higher than it was before the accident.

 

[TonyM]

It's been almost 4 years since this incident, and I realised I never posted the results from all 7 cameras.

These are unedited 100% crops taken from the clearest video frame of each camera, showing the approaching car and its number plate.

1080p cameras
Blueskysea B1W

Mobius 1 - Lens D

1440p cameras

Viofo A119

GitUp G3

4K cameras

GitUp F1

Xiaomi Mijia Mini

And the 7th camera was my rear-facing Mobius 1, with a 6mm telephoto lens:



Despite having the slowest lenses (F2.8) the 4K cameras recorded the clearest number plates. I believe this is because with 4K resolution you can resolve details in oncoming cars when they are mostly driving straight towards you, with little movement across the frame. By the time the 1440p and especially the 1080p cameras can resolve the detail, the oncoming car is closer and its motion carries it faster across the field of view in each video frame, leading to more blurring. Of course, this only applies to cars approaching each other on a mostly straight road.

The A119 did much better then the G3, as expected when comparing a fast-lens dashcam to an action camera.

One lesson I learned from this experience is that dashcam redundancy can prove to be useful, particularly if you use cameras that have different strengths such as high resolution or good low light performance.

Since this incident I have started driving with both a standard dashcam and also a telephoto lens that generally does much better at head-on recording than any of my wide-angle cameras. I no longer use any of the cameras shown here, with the exception of the rear-facing Mobius 1.

 

[Nigel]

The A119 did much better then the G3, as expected when comparing a fast-lens dashcam to an action camera.

It is also a narrow angle for a dashcam, so similar advantage to a telephoto.

Since this incident I have started driving with both a standard dashcam and also a telephoto lens that generally does much better at head-on recording than any of my wide-angle cameras.

What amount of telephoto is best to pair with a standard dashcam?

 

[TonyM]

What amount of telephoto is best to pair with a standard dashcam?

I would say around 6-8mm (on a 1/2.8" sensor) gives good results. Much greater magnification results in too narrow a crop to be useful, and the car motion is exaggerated often resulting in a blurred video.

 

[Dashmellow]

What amount of telephoto is best to pair with a standard dashcam?

Example of what TonyM is describing, although this is a slightly longer lens.

 

[Nigel]

Example of what TonyM is describing, although this is a slightly longer lens.

View attachment 58643

View attachment 58644

That looks too much to me, often when you need these things, you are turning a corner and the longer lens then causes extra motion blur. Well maybe not so much of an issue in countries that use light controlled junctions, but not so good on roundabouts…

 

[Harsh]

Yeah, my 12mm is a bit too much. With 4K, 6-8mm would be the sweet spot.