A reason NOT to have GPS. Let's say the accident was due to someone cutting across at traffic lights on red but you were going 5mph over the limit.
You have excellent evidence your light is green BUT you worry about your speed being shown on your dash cam footage. What do you do then?
Exactly and I've said this many times.
A camera with speed recording is a double edged sword and those who swear they never exceed the speed limit are unlikely to have not done so, because insurance surveys with a black box, have shown that almost all those that do claim to never exceed the speed limit do at some point. It's inevitable. No-one has 100% concentration and 99.9% of even careful drivers don't drive like granddad. As for the rest of us, which is the other 95% of the population, most do deliberately exceed the speed limit by a small margin when the road conditions allow, which again makes speed recording a dangerous tool.
That 5mph might be the difference between you succeeding in a claim in a no fault accident that couldn't be avoided despite the extra 5mph, and the companies settling by apportioning blame on you as well.
If speed becomes an issue it can easily be determined from the content of the video - with or without GPS.
I doubt it would stand up in Court. In Court in the UK at least, I'm pretty sure to allege speeding you have to be able to prove an exact speed not an approximate. You cannot charge someone criminally with generic speeding. You have to charge them with doing Xmph in a Ymph zone and to do that you have to be able to prove X mph exactly beyond any reasonable doubt, which is why speed guns have to be specially calibrated. It's impossible to do that from pure dashcam footage because of parallax and other lens errors / movement that affect the exact distance calculation. However, if the footage shows you obviously driving over the limit to the extent there's absolutely no doubt you're way over, then the footage could probably be used to show careless or dangerous driving. To that extent there may be a margin between the speed limit and stupidly over where the speed cannot be proven.
In a Civil Court, I'd expect any footage purporting to show someone over the limit to be challengeable the exact same way, albeit the level of proof is lower. However, the person claiming the other party was speeding is still going to have to prove on the balance of probabilities they were, and it's still going to be open to the other party to claim that the speed cannot be accurately calculated from the video and so it cannot be proven. It's all going to depend on what the video shows. Adding in GPS speed recording may take away some of that doubt. In my opinion, pure video is much harder to prove from because it becomes down to opinion and factors such as the lens and how wide a view it has, as this may also affect apparent speed when video is viewed. (Wider angle lens tend in my opinion to make speeds look higher than narrower lenses). Another good example is you look to be going faster in a lower car than a higher one eg SUV. All these factors can create doubt over the speed.
It depends on how strict the law wants to be. They recently said in our country they were introducing variable fines based on the percentage of your earnings, for speed infringements as low as 1mph over the speed limit.
Trouble in the UK is injure or kill someone and if the police can prove you were over at all, then they likely will nail you to the wall with potential prison. For just speeding, there traditionally has been a 10% margin with some forces, although it's not law and the police can prosecute you for 1mph over if they want to.
Alright so I've had a dashcam for about a month. I'm forever seeing people do dumb things on the roads, so just wanted to start making some YouTube videos
TBH I don't agree with anyone posting Youtube videos. Don't forget everyone makes mistakes / misjudgements and that person one day might be YOU! Anyone who says they never exceeded a speed limit, accidentally pulled out in front of someone at a junction, accidentally cut someone up eg on an island when they maybe lost their way around for a second (particularly here on 4 or 5 lane islands!), gone slightly too fast and slipped on ice even if only slightly putting the back out, etc etc is lying. We've all made mistakes when driving.
Also there' s little utility in it. Take the example of the 17 year old above who ran into the back of someone's car. So you post it. He's embarrassed at the time (even more so if it was a simple mistake). However, a few days later he's all but forgotten about it and unless he navigates back to your video, will probably never think about it again. As for others, they view your video and see someone run up the back of your car. What do they think? I'm never going to do that? No they watch it as entertainment, laugh at the guys misfortune and then move on. 24 hrs later they've forgotten about it. So what has it achieved? Precisely nothing. People don't watch Youtube and learn or think I'm going to drive more carefully. I've watched hundreds of car crash videos on Youtube, I doubt I could even remember one and non have influenced me to in any way drive differently. Posting videos is a waste of time and as I said, one day you could be the subject. All it does is provide someone else with momentary entertainment. It doesn't make the world safer and in some cases, it may even encourage others to try the same thing.
Have to also consider they can change their story about admitting guilt at scene especially after knowing how much cost and penalty to them will be involved.
Without them knowing I have recordings, they can tell their fantasy stories and I have proof of the real thing.
One thing to bear in mind is most insurance policies contain a clause that VOIDS that policy if you make any admission of liability. Don't believe me, read your small print. Although I've never heard of it being exercised, an admission of guilt could be the last thing you need to get or make as it could leave the policy voided and either you without cover for your own vehicle (if at fault), or you pursuing the other owner through the Courts who may or may not be able to pay for damage to your vehicle if his policy is voided. As I said, I've never heard of it being exercised but it is in there. Another positive factor is usually insurance companies don't punish 3rd parties so if they did void, they wouldn't necessarily not pay an innocent 3rd party out. Worth bearing in mind though before admitting or using admissions of liability.
