I went to the trouble of re-reading the
@jackalopephoto's OP for this thread and it places this entire somewhat contentious discussion in an interesting perspective.
To make things easier I will copy the original post here for the purposes of discussion:
"Yesterday I was turning left at a 4 way stop, and someone went through the stop sign and hit my passenger front door. I couldn't see her once I was in the intersection looking at where I was going, and even if I did, wouldn't have had enough time to avoid the crash. But I posted my video in a group for my car (VW Alltrack) and almost everyone said I could have avoided the crash if I was paying attention! That's fine, but what if the misleading view provided by the wide angle causes your insurance company to accept fault for a crash? Or what if you were involved in a crash that went to court and the jury doesn't understand "field of view"?
Maybe we should have cameras that capture a view similar to what we see from the driver seat, and make up for it with multiple cameras providing coverage"
So we are informed that the OP had already presented the story and the video to a different discussion forum and
"almost everyone" said that he could have avoided the accident if he were paying attention. This echoes the perspective of several of the members here including me.
Nowhere in the Original Post is there any mention of the other driver failing to obey the stop sign.
The entire concern we hear expressed by
@jackalopephoto revolves around the question of whether the wide view of most dash cams is
"misleading" because a court and jury might not understand
"field of view". Indeed the title of this thread is
"The downside of a wide angle lens".
Only after repeated scrutiny of the video did the issue of running the stop sign come into this discussion. That fact revealed in the video might indeed be
@jackalopephoto's proof that he is not at fault in this accident but since there is evidence of a bit of a "rolling stop" on his part, a court or insurance claim may or may not be so cut and dried.
The interesting thing here is that the wide angle lens happens to be the very reason that the other motorist was captured on camera blowing through the stop sign.
Instead of there being a downside, it provided the key evidence now claimed by the OP.
How ironic.
P.S.
@jackalopephoto, I do concede that the other driver ran the stop sign even though you didn't happen to mention that in your introduction to this story but if this case should indeed go to court I do hope you win.