Insurance and cameras

If I had a camera like a gorpo or something similar which i used on my daily commute and when driving my car. If involved in an accident can the video footage be used as evidence? for example to support a statement in an insurance claim.


Also can the camera but used against you in the court of law, as it is not time stamped etc would this void the use as evidence?


as legal and insurance are kinda different when it comes to laws be useful to know the line. I want a gopro purely for the sake of insurance but if its not going to help me in insurance perposes its just an excuse to get a play toy.

anyone gone through insurance claims or know people with experience will be cool to hear their story

[PyroUK]

Not too sure on your points, but it may be possible to add a time stamp, my ghost hd s can, I have it on for that reason.

I would say that the footage could be used for and against you though by the insurers.

As a completely random addition which could answer part if it...

I was watching police interceptors or similar the other day and a van smashed in to some parked cars and set them on fire, the guy told the cops that a big rig had driven straight at him and he had to swerve etc. they managed to track down the big rig who had a dash cam and showed the guy plough in to the cars a good half mile down the road and they took that as evidence. So I guess it could stand up in a legal process

[jambo]

I think it is classed under "supporting evidence".

So a video of a car traveling above 30mph on the road isn't evidence that an offence was committed on a given day as it can tampered with or your instruments may not be calibrated. However, if you video a crash it's going to be a pretty compelling point of view that will take more than the other person coming up with a different version of events to counter.

Jambo

[Red Herring]

Pretty much "anything" can be, and has been, used as evidence. The issue is over the weight that the evidence may carry.

Video equipment fitted to police cars is calibrated, tested and approved with a fairly robust audit trail around what has happened to the footage post event. As such it is generally considered to be fairly reliable.

Civilian systems are now just as capable of producing comparable images (in fact some are considerable better) so as long as the content hasn't been "edited" then it is going to be considered very useful evidence. Just remember that this might not always be to your advantage! The police can quite lawfully seize anything that is evidence of any offence so if you do get stopped for doing something silly it might be best if your camera isn't to obvious....

[Juju]

You have to remember, an insurance claim is a civil matter, and so there are no hoops and hurdles that say police equipment designed to be used en masse for criminal prosecutions has to pass.

A camera/dashcam can be important evidence. I've repudiated a couple of claims in the last couple of months when dashcam footage has proven a third party to be at fault, notably a plated taxi driven by someone with the usual "whiplash", who just cut straight into a policyholders lane on a roundabout and slammed on, and who had gone to one of those dodgy East London accident management companies and was hiring a plated vehicle at £130+ per day, incurring £30 storage and chasing a £250 recovery fee.

I bet they got him out the car bloody quickly once I sent the footage to his dodgy Bolton solicitors, but I must admit, I did sit on the footage for a fortnight just to really drop him in the do do.

I also had that well known claim thatmade the front pages of MCN a few years ago, some twonk on a KTM, who had been going through villages in Surrey on a ride out at up to 90 on his rear wheel, and then slammed into the side of an off duty police officer who pulled out at a junction sheltered by trees below a brow on a hill in a 30. When he hit the car, his camera flew off, and ended up in the front garden of an old dear who helpfully gave it to the police. They prosecited him, took his licence away and sent him to prison for, I think, 16 weeks. He also had a broken leg and lost his employment. However, oddly enough, the video actually showed that despite excessive speed, he should have been seen by the car driver, and got his claim dealt with!