Are dashboard video cameras legal??

[Johno02]

Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

[beemerphile1]

beemerphile1 wrote:

cameronpatentlaw wrote:
Generally, anything that is relevant to litigation is discoverable. If there is evidence that leads to a finding of the facts, the courts typically allow it be discovered and introduced. So if you have a running GoPro on your dash, and your phone beeps announcing the receipt of a text message (caught on audio), and you pick up the phone to read the message (time message read recorded on phone) and you rear-end someone (video of accident caught on camera) while reading the text, chances are quite good that the lawyer for the other side is going to subpoena that GoPro video and your cell phone records and match them up. The lawyer may also subpoena the black box of your vehicle. So, drive safe out there!

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

Quoting myself to respond to those that think they need to correct me. I responded to a specific case where the driver was already at fault. The camera did not make them any more at fault than they would have been otherwise!

Yes, a dash cam can prove innocence if the driver in the rear is innocent. I have a dash cam and have had it for a couple years.

[rhagfo]

Winged One wrote:

shakyjay wrote:

Winged One wrote:

Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.

Yes, you are correct. IF mounted so as to not obstruct. But those that are designed to be mounted in such a way (either on the glass or on the dash, blocking the glass) would be technically illegally mounted. So the camera is not illegal, just how you mount it, might be.

Small enough and mounted correctly can't be seen by the driver.

[Johno02]

Don't need a super telephoto any more, just a drone outside a window.

[Winged_One]

shakyjay wrote:

Winged One wrote:

Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.

Yes, you are correct. IF mounted so as to not obstruct. But those that are designed to be mounted in such a way (either on the glass or on the dash, blocking the glass) would be technically illegally mounted. So the camera is not illegal, just how you mount it, might be.

[shakyjay]

Winged One wrote:

Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.

[spoon059]

bguy wrote:
In the situation you describe you will always be at fault if you are the rear ender. edit: even if the other party has no brakelights.

I believe that in Alberta the court won't allow dash cam as the only source of evidence.

#1 that is NOT true. If you are legally driving down a 55 mph road at speed and some clown pulls out of a side street or business directly in front of you and you run into the back of them, you are NOT at fault.

If you are driving down the road on a multi-lane highway and the guy next to you slams on his brakes and veers into your lane and you run into the back of him, you are NOT at fault.

If you are driving at night and the guy in front of you doesn't have taillights and is stopped in the road and you run into the back of him, you are NOT at fault.

However, if there is no proof that one of those things occurred, it can be hard to prove that the other driver was at fault. A dash cam could clearly and easily show what happened and make it super easy for a police officer or judge to determine exactly what happened.

#2 I am not from Canada, so I am not familiar with the laws up there... but I can't understand how a private video could not be used as evidence. Does the law specifically state dash cams are not admissible? What about your wife holding her cell and recording it? What about a private security camera from a business?

Not to call you a liar, but it just doesn't make sense. Video evidence, if it can be authenticated and proven not to be altered, is generally acceptable (even preferred) in the USA. I can't fathom that Alberta wouldn't allow dash cam footage to be admissible. Then again, even if its not admissible in court it could still be useful for an officer at the scene investigating a wreck and determining fault.

[atreis]

Jagtech wrote:
Hmmm, cameras that can record license plates... invasion of privacy...

You can see their license plate too, and if they're driving on a public road they're making their license plate freely viewable by all - e.g. not private.

The private part of license plate data is the tie between the license plate and the person that owns it. Access and use of that data is regulated under the Driver's Protection Privacy Act.

[Bumpyroad]

dave54 wrote:


No. I was not at fault. The vehicle in front suddenly slammed on the brakes for no reason. The court ruled he was at fault and I collected damages (rather, my insurance company did. They had already paid my claim and sued the front driver.) Two other people I know had similar results.

That is why I always have a reason that I slam on my brakes, usually it is because a small animal darts out in front of me.
bumpy

[Jagtech]

Hmmm, cameras that can record license plates... invasion of privacy... where does photo radar come into this picture?

[dave54]

bguy wrote:

dave54 wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

No. That has not been true for at least forty years, if it ever was. If the vehicle in front suddenly stops for no valid reason then THEY may be at fault.

In the situation you describe you will always be at fault if you are the rear ender. edit: even if the other party has no brakelights.
?..

No. I was not at fault. The vehicle in front suddenly slammed on the brakes for no reason. The court ruled he was at fault and I collected damages (rather, my insurance company did. They had already paid my claim and sued the front driver.) Two other people I know had similar results.

[noplace2]

naturist wrote:


By "extraordinary equipment," I mean that you can't use a monster telephoto lens to peer into somebody's living room from 2 miles away

Well poop. There goes yet another form of amusement! :B

[bguy]

dave54 wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

No. That has not been true for at least forty years, if it ever was. If the vehicle in front suddenly stops for no valid reason then THEY may be at fault.

In the situation you describe you will always be at fault if you are the rear ender. edit: even if the other party has no brakelights.

I believe that in Alberta the court won't allow dash cam as the only source of evidence.

[dave54]

beemerphile1 wrote:

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

No. That has not been true for at least forty years, if it ever was. If the vehicle in front suddenly stops for no valid reason then THEY may be at fault.

[wa8yxm]

beemerphile1 wrote:
Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

Not 3 miles from where I'm typing I got detoured around a 2 car accident, Both drivers went to hospital (the police officer was then sent home but the other driver was hurt bad).

Sheriff Representative showed me the dash cam video Twice

Yes the Police car hit the other car broadside

But.... There is no cross road there.. It is a 3-lane,, (N/b, S/B and Right lane must turn right up ahead a bit)

Driver in the right lanem,, Decided to turn left ... right in front of the poof policeman (And who says there's never a cop around when you need a ticket?)

TV show which often incorporated some reality had a man who wished to "Get Paid" so he was causing accidents where he got rear ended.. When one driver stopped in plenty of time he put it in reverse and floored it (The cops were watching).

Real life that happened last week. (A very common scam variation on swoop and squat) (Dash cam saved the victim a lot of headache).

THIS is why dash cams need to be standard hardware.. Black boxes (Event recorders) are on many cars now.

Those too can save your butt in a collision... Or hang it out to dry.