Car Tech: In-car video evidence
In-car video evidence
by PeteG - 8/15/06 8:50 AMHi,
A few years ago I saw an innovative idea of a small video camera place in front of the rear view mirror that recorded on a loop of 30 seconds or so. When an impact was felt the recorder stopped thus preserving the time sequence up to the accident and provided evidence of how the accident happened. I have not heard of this idea since, do anybody know of anywhere to purchase one and if so are they being successfully used? I understand that some new cars are using GPS data in a "black box", like an aeroplane, to record speed and direction to help with accidents.
Pete
Quite an ingenious idea...
by GeeBee - 8/17/06 5:23 AM In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteG...but one with an obvious problem.
If the recording is a 30 second loop, what's to say an accident might not occur right at the start of the loop, or only a second after that? You'd end up with a video showing nothing, or only a second of the pre-accident! Hardly useful. Of course you could time it yourself :
''...28....29....CRASH! There you go officer, 30 seconds of pre-accident footage!'' 
To do the job effectively you'd need two recorders running 15 seconds apart (multiplied by how many cars?), so even if the collision happened on frame 1 of video 1, you'd still have 15 seconds of action on video 2.....it's all just too costly an idea to implement, and no substitute for proper and careful driver training and skills (and not forgetting those police and accident investigator people who look at the wreckage to see what went on).
GPS recorders work exactly as you say, direction / speed, and such, but do not take into account variables on the road. They're good for backing up that you were on the major road when a car pulled out of a little alleyway and presented you with an opportunity (...27....28....29....yippeeee!), but they are of little help otherwise. In fact, they are a confused hindrance.
''officer I pulled out of there, but that GPS car was speeding, I misjudged how far they were away and didn't have enough time, and we collided!''.
Who's to blame? The person who pulled out wrongly, or the person who was wrongly 5mph over the speed limit? It's even worse when a variable introduces itself into the mix.
''Officer I was driving along there...what? Yes, yes, I admit I was 5mph too fast! Anyway this thickwit with no driver skills, pulled out of this little alley here, when they didn't have enough time, and a small dog (which I don't think had either GPS or video loop!) ran out between parked cars! I was distracted for a split second and forgot to brake to avoid the aforementioned thickwit, and our cars hit! Luckily I was at 29 seconds of video time at that point...yes AGAIN!. You can see the dog's tail at 26 seconds in the timeline....''
GB.
Or it does work, becase this is not 1980.
by chadbailey - 7/19/09 4:52 AM In reply to: Quite an ingenious idea... by GeeBeeA loop feature on digital memory will ALWAYS have 30 seconds recorded. There is no need for the device to "stop and rewind" like you are thinking. When it runs in a 30 second loop, you get exactly that, a 30 second loop. Makes your response seem a little... funny, doesn't it?
And yes I do know I am posting almost 2 years later.
It's been done.
by R. Proffitt
- 8/17/06 6:26 AM
In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteG
The problem is that such accidents are thankfully rare. I haven't been in such but a rear end collision which covers my 35+ years of driving. So the problem is that the system in my life would have to work for 35+ years for that one event.
Then again you could be documenting your mistake.
The killer item is the cost benefit analysis. Since the events are rare, the costs of capturing it are very high. Plus the costs to capture increase since we need an almost 360 degree capture field since you can't tell what direction the impact will come from. With cheap cameras that means 2 to 4 wide field cameras.
Bob
In response
by PeteG - 8/18/06 1:26 PM In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteGI understand both you points of view. However the reason I'm interested is that I had a car accident a few years ago where a driver pulled out of a side road and I hit him. All seemed clear and simple, he pulled out across a main road and he caused an accident. However, he claimed that he was already out across the main road and had stopped in the road and claimed that I just ran in to him! Now if I had a video in the car it would have been able to prove that he was at fault.
The 30-second loop idea isn't intended to record 30 seconds then delete it all, then start again. When 31 seconds have passed it would delete the video of the 1st second, the when 32 seconds pass it would delete the 2nd second, then the 3rd, 4th etc.
If the accident were from the rear or the side then the video of you driving along a clear road when the accident happened would be clear evidence that the other person was at fault.
Now if you were at fault then the best idea would be to only show the video to your lawyer and let them decide if the evidence is worth using, if not then nobody will know.
I do agree that it is a huge expense for something that might happen every few years, if at all. However, I am just exploring the idea.
Pete
On a negative side
by richsaab - 8/24/06 11:20 AM In reply to: In response by PeteGThe auto insurance companies are already trying to have the right to our black boxes in our newer cars. They want to use this information to determine our insurance premiums by what they see on the black box recordings. If you have been a good boy or girl and have acted in way that matches the criteria set forth by the insurance company for a good boy or girl, then there should not be a problem. But, how many of us always drive in a way that would be beyond question? The camera just adds to this possible situation of misrepresentation. Be careful what you wish for.
Richard
Legal notes about EDRs.
by R. Proffitt - 8/24/06 11:35 AM
In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteG
Have you tried DejaView Camwear 100?
by PixelBrat - 8/31/06 12:23 PM In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteGThe DejaView Camwear 100 wasn't necessarily made for this purpose but could easily be adapted for such. As a matter of fact here's a brief article where someone did this type of thing with one of these. See it here: http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/02/dejaview_camwear_car_mount.html
I certainly wouldn't pay full retail price for one of these ($300) but I just bought a used one on ebay for $100. The video quality is only fair at best but it may be enough for what you are wanting to do with it.
It needs sensors
by PeteG - 9/6/06 9:20 AM In reply to: Have you tried DejaView Camwear 100? by PixelBratThe idea is there. However there need to be some sort of automatic sensor that stops recording once an accident has taken place as you may not be able to stop the filming and you'd loose all the evidence.
Thanks for the link to the web page.
Pete
UK availability
by checkdrive - 12/24/08 3:05 AM In reply to: In-car video evidence by PeteGMy company markets a simple GPS based unit which records up to 16hrs of video on a 2GB SD card and remembers impacts as well so no problem with recording time etc. www.checkdrive.co.uk for more details. Retail £250 plus vat and delivery
We have that here in the US too
by marlonnight - 2/27/09 3:14 PM In reply to: UK availability by checkdriveYour site sucks. It's just one screen.
We have that same thing here in the US. http://www.partspc.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProdID=7355
I saw it at CES. It's pretty badass. It records anytime there is sudden movement. When you take the sd card out and look at it on your computer it shows where you were on google maps.
I dont know if you can mount it on the back of your car, but either way, its pretty tight.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
