What is your opinion on having vs not having an interior-facing camera?

[rgbdct]

I'm trying to decide if I should get a 3-channel dash cam with an interior-facing camera or a 2-channel dash cam without an interior-facing camera, so I thought I'd solicit others' opinions on the topic.

Discounting the obvious difference that a 3-channel system will cost more than a 2-channel system, what are your reasons for choosing to go with or without an interior-facing camera?

 

[Nigel]

1. Very good for showing that you were not on the phone during the accident even when witnesses say that you were!
2. Very good for showing the behaviour of people at the window, including other driver's road rage and cops being unprofessional.
3. Good for making passengers behave - you are on camera!
4. Can be useful for showing vehicles alongside yours, they generally don't see the whole side view, but they do fill parts of the gap between back and front, so can show what went wrong when someone overtook, particularly on roundabouts when a vehicle alongside yours can spend a lot of time not on either front or rear camera.
5. If you are not including cost then there is little reason not to have one, and as long as you are not sharing a vehicle then privacy isn't really affected, you probably have the sound anyway, and you don't have to watch yourself on video if you don't want to, until the footage is needed. You soon get used to it anyway.
6. There can be issues with mounting location, a dashcam with front and interior lenses in the same unit needs to be mounted where it can see in both directions, which in some cars is in the way of the driver's view, but a Viofo A139 with the interior camera separate solves that.
7. At the moment, I think you still need to sacrifice 4K resolution and are limited to 30fps, but currently most people are recommending 2K 30fps anyway. Maybe something to think about if you live in an area with hard to read small text on your license plates, 4K does seem to be quite popular in the USA for that reason.

Can't think of anything else at present...

 

[kamkar]

I dont like as i am not ride share driver, if i where i would love.

I do agree with some of Nigel's arguments, but as i private i would not buy a camera with a cabin view.

 

[DAP]

Don't limit yourself to a single camera system. You can get the equivelent of a three channel system by using three separate cameras. With separate cameras, the data rate to each memory card can be lower, or you can have higher resolution images on all three views. Also you get redundancy, and more options to choose from (there aren't many 3 camera systems available).

 

[Nigel]

A very good point from DAP.

If you want a 3 channel system then an A139 comes in cheaper than 3x A119, it has the recording of the 3 channels more or less synchronised, recorded on a single memory card, and it has a single lock button, but at lower bitrate, lower resolution for 2 of the channels, and less redundancy.

 

[kamkar]

I wouldn't call a single rear camera redundancy in relation to the front camera, is the action is in front it dont matter much what go on behind your car.
There are something for sure,,,, but i was sick and tired of going for multiple memory cards in different cameras in my car.

 

[rgbdct]

Don't limit yourself to a single camera system. You can get the equivelent of a three channel system by using three separate cameras. With separate cameras, the data rate to each memory card can be lower, or you can have higher resolution images on all three views. Also you get redundancy, and more options to choose from (there aren't many 3 camera systems available).

I can see how that works for exterior cameras, but all I could see from reputable manufacturers for interior cameras were second or third channels in multi-channel systems.

 

[TonyM]

A dedicated interior camera typically has IR illuminators and the ability to switch between daytime and night mode, whereas a separate single channel camera is unlikely to offer this.

An interior camera might be useful in parking mode, both to capture events within and alongside the car. Alternatively, you could say it draws attention to itself and becomes a theft target?

While you can sometimes hide a front-facing camera behind the rear view mirror, the interior camera needs to see into the cabin and therefore is noticeable to the driver and any passengers. Some people may not like having a camera on show in their car.

 

[Lothar]

I'm trying to decide if I should get a 3-channel dash cam with an interior-facing camera or a 2-channel dash cam without an interior-facing camera, so I thought I'd solicit others' opinions on the topic.

Discounting the obvious difference that a 3-channel system will cost more than a 2-channel system, what are your reasons for choosing to go with or without an interior-facing camera?

I don't see any value for an interior camera unless you do Uber/Lyft.

An interior cam can hurt you in the court of law just as much as it can help you.
I would prefer the camera to focus on what the other bad drivers are doing and not necessarily what I am doing.

 

[Vortex Radar]

Here’s a few reasons I’ve found:

 

[TonyM]

An interior cam can hurt you in the court of law just as much as it can help you.

Yes, however a front facing camera can hurt you too.

 

[Nigel]

An interior cam can hurt you in the court of law just as much as it can help you.

You don't normally have to present evidence against yourself in a court of law...

 

[Lothar]

Yes, however a front facing camera can hurt you too.

That's true, but I'm talking about a different kind of hurt. I can easily control what happens with the front camera by ensuring I stay in my lane, don't speed, obeying traffic laws, etc...

Read (especially the section on comparative negligence): https://www.valuepenguin.com/fault-or-no-fault-accident-decision-affects-auto-insurance-claims
If your state or country does not use "comparative negligence"(awarding a certain percentage of fault to the driver), I do not expect it to be an issue.

I can picture the other driver's defense lawyer making the following arguments with an interior cam, especially at locations that use some sort of comparative negligence(awarding a certain percentage of fault to the driver):
1.) You blinked too long (or too much), which could have affected your judgement. Your blink was more than the standard average human blink reaction time.
2.) Did you pick your nose a few seconds prior to the accident? If you did, then it means you may have been partially distracted and both hands were not on the steering wheel for you to take evasive action to avoid the accident even though the other driver may have been at fault.
3.) Did you change the radio station, increase or reduce your A/C or heat a few seconds prior to the accident? If you did, then it means you may have been partially distracted and both hands were not on the steering wheel for you to take evasive action to avoid the accident even though the other driver may have been at fault.
4.) Did you open a bottle of water, drink water, hot coffee or tea? Same as above. Depending on how deep they go, it could even lead to them estimating the temperature of the coffee/tea at the time of the accident that you got from Starbucks, McDonalds, or Dunkin Donuts.
5.) And possibly many other random shenanigans that they can bring up to reduce or absolve them from paying claims...

Distracted driving is a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers partially divert their attention from the driving task to some other activity (picking your nose, changing the radio station, opening a bottle of water, drinking water/coffee/tea, etc...).
Even though the other driver may have been at fault for the accident, I can imagine their defense bringing some of these claims.

And of course if you did not do any of this things, it can also clear you as well.

 

[Lothar]

You don't normally have to present evidence against yourself in a court of law...

I am not a lawyer by profession so I cannot confirm or deny your statement.

I'm curious though...
If you supply the front/rear recording of an A139 for an accident, an astute defense lawyer for the opposing party would know (or discover) that an A139 is a 3 channel dashcam and therefore also request that you submit the interior recording for the record for analysis.

If one lives in a state or country that uses some sort of "comparative negligence", you best believe that anything and everything could be on the table.
Anything and everything to reduce or absolve them from paying claims could be brought up by the opposing party's insurance or defense lawyer.