Why aren't front and rear cameras for accident/security standard?

[Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 11:47
Last edited 29/05/2016 - 11:47

Or at least a standard option?

I've been looking into a new car recently and have been really surprised that it's not even an option on the table for most cars I've looked at. It feels like it'd be a really good selling point - "you never had to worry about convincing insurance companies who's at fault!" and "if someone keys your car you might catch them on video!" the salesman will say, and it won't be entirely bullhonkey.

They could build them in with design in mind, hide the wires and device itself within the chassis, it would generally look a lot better than the after sales off brand options could ever look.

The quality of cameras has been good and cheap enough for years. They have huge bargaining power and the parts would cost them nothing, the biggest expensive would be in the design and production line changes and even then they'd be relatively minor tweaks.

Why isn't this a standard thing? Is there some big down side I'm missing?

Automotive

Comments

  • Ughhh on 29/05/2016 - 11:54
    +17

    Same reason as why A/C and electric Windows weren't standard features back in the mid 90s?

    • adante on 31/05/2016 - 13:17
      +1

      I always find it mildly annoying to see questions like the OP where the answer is basically standard economic constraints which should be plainly obvious if you use common sense and spend a half second to think about it

      Why don't we live in a post scarcity utopic society???????????????????????????????????????? I JUST DON'T SEE ANY GOOD REASON

    • No on 29/05/2016 - 12:04
      +48

      Unless you park in a toilet it should be ok.

      • Settero on 29/05/2016 - 12:27
        -2

        thats a pretty short sighted answer, in Australia it might be legal but Australia is a fairly small % of the car market , thus why would a company engineer a car to have those as standard when in countries like america crossing from state to state you have different laws making them illegal in some and legal in others , and in countries like Switzerland just plain illegal.

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 12:45
          +1

          @jimbobaus:

          courts will also not accept the footage as evidence unless you have the other party sign a "release" accepting they were filmed and that they were ok with it.

          Does this only apply to recording of persons of interest or does it also include vehicles of interest?

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 13:13
          +5

          @jimbobaus:

          it is ILLEGAL to film someone without their permission

          Where are you getting your information from?
          http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/police-naive-to-tell-public-not-to-f…

        • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 13:27
          -5

          @whooah1979:
          In regards to the industry I work in we consider the footage to have been obtained without all parties consent and there fire illegal under the privacy act

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 13:34
          +4

          @jimbobaus:

          privacy act

          The privacy act of 1988 doesn't apply to surveillance cameras operated by individuals.

        • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 13:42
          -2

          Replying on phone.
          Surveillance Devices Act 1999

        • shadowarrior on 29/05/2016 - 14:04
          +6

          @jimbobaus: But dashcam footage is regularly used by police to identify victims and parties at fault. So if I pass the dashcam footage to the police, they determine that the third party is at fault, then forward the police report to your company, who would that be dealt with?

          If someone comes in front of my car and brakes to get insurance (because unless there's proof, a rear ender is at fault), and my dashcam footage captures the whole thing, I am finding it hard your company can turn a blind eye to the footage and bill me for the insurance. And this has happened before in AU.

        • teardrops21 on 29/05/2016 - 17:39
          +4

          @jimbobaus: if this was the case all CC TV camera images would be useless! I accept there are certain instances where footage would not be able to be used. However dashcams rarely record people but other cars. These are just my thought not an expert opinion of someone who works in the industry.

        • Baysew on 29/05/2016 - 17:41
          +6

          @jimbobaus:

          AAMI Insurance spokesman Reuben Aitchison says dash cams are an important source of evidence during disputes.

          "We've had a few claims where dash-cam footage from a customer has helped us decide the claim and determine that the customer is not at fault," he says.

          "That's saved the customer the cost of their excess, which for some customers is around $500 or $600."

          And

          Malcolm Cumming is a principal with Maurice Blackburn lawyers specialising in personal-injury law.

          He says drivers with video footage of an incident are much more likely to be able to prove the actions of other parties are negligent, giving them a stronger case for compensation.

          "It goes without saying that having video evidence would be the very best evidence you could have and present to court," he says.

          "[Dash cams] are now starting to become very commonly used and accessible.

          "My expectation is that they will become in very wide circulation and you'll see the footage obtained by clients on an increasing basis."

          Why dash cams could change the way you drive

        • cath999 on 29/05/2016 - 19:28
          +27

          @jimbobaus:

          My car was keyed in a carpark. My rear dashcam caught the offender pulling up in her car and doing it. Took footage to the police who got her details from number plate and she was charged with malicious damage.

          Went to court (NSW) in January and she was ordered to pay the cost of repair - $800. Received a cheque a week later from the court and my car has since been repaired.

          My dashcams paid for themselves that day.

        • FirstNameLastName on 29/05/2016 - 19:46
          +1

          woah. was this random.

          any idea why did they targeted your car?

        • harkoliar on 29/05/2016 - 20:25
          +2

          @Stitchy:
          Most likely an accident and did a runner.

          One that frustrates me of people opening their doors without looking and banging the car beside you.

          Wish I can catch those people in the act

        • FirstNameLastName on 29/05/2016 - 21:17
          +1

          @harkoliar:

          I was referring to comment by Cath999.
          I don't think it was an accident because the judge found there was 'malicious' damage.
          I assume the dashcam showed it was purposeful.

          Just wondering why someone would do this.
          Personal attack usually.
          Mistaken identity possible.
          Random attack, rarely but I've seen it on liveleak.

        • 2024 on 30/05/2016 - 00:18
          +5

          @jimbobaus: I could almost wonder why 7, 9, abc camera operators don't get charged several times a day if it is illegal to film in public without the persons permission. But I don't. Because I know without a doubt that you are completely wrong.

        • BestofOZB on 30/05/2016 - 10:19
          +6

          @jimbobaus: I am currenlty looking for car insurance, do you mind telling me which company you work for? One less to look at!

        • prinzw on 30/05/2016 - 11:25
          +2

          @jimbobaus:

          Tell us which company is that…. i will quit at once if i got that company's premium

        • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2016 - 12:40

          Irrelevant.

          Cars are tailored to individual countries to a certain extent. One of my cars are significantly different to the US model and UK model. The US model is stripped down like a poor man's car, and the UK model doesn't work well in hot weather.

          Many of the part numbers are different to too. A prime example are the tyres.

          They can easily have a rear view mirror and rear brake lights to house a camera and only have the camera installed in appropriate regions.

          They do not do this because of cost. A cheapie on ebay will set you back $150 or so, but every component in a car has to go through automotive scrutiny. (example: in built GPS). It'll be tough convincing an Hyundai i20 Customer to shell out an extra thousand because the car has cameras as standard.

        • Daabido on 30/05/2016 - 18:11
          +1

          @whooah1979: He's getting his information out of someone's ill-informed back side.

        • No ONE on 30/05/2016 - 20:01
          +2

          @jimbobaus: i think I privacy act does not apply in public area

        • cath999 on 30/05/2016 - 20:02
          +2

          @Stitchy:

          She thought I "stole" her carpark. I didn't. She was waiting for a guy to leave with her blinker on so I went around her and there was another spot further up so I parked. The guy she was waiting for ended up not leaving. She cracked it. On my dashcam she's going beserk and swearing, threatening me etc. I was like WTF??? And wandered off. Not only did my dashcam catch her but also the CCTV right above my car.

        • FirstNameLastName on 30/05/2016 - 20:14
          +6

          @cath999:

          Must have felt extremely pleasurable catching her.. My two great loves in life are vindaloo and vindication.

          Definitely getting a dash cam now.

        • supnigs super skids on 30/05/2016 - 20:37
          +1

          @jimbobaus: doesn't compute with common sense

        • cath999 on 30/05/2016 - 20:39
          +2

          @Stitchy:
          Yes it was great! I had only just got my dashcams too

        • nobro25 on 31/05/2016 - 07:58
          +1

          @jimbobaus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgGgmOy2av4
          I finally found you! Illegal photographers LMAO

        • asianbargain on 31/05/2016 - 08:32
          +1

          @harkoliar: this is so true. Sepcially I hate those ppl with kids. Sometime their kids open the door by themself and bang other car or other time parent open door for the kids too big , since they they care . how you would react if you see a kid open door and scratch your car I wonder?

        • nicend on 31/05/2016 - 08:37
          +1

          @jimbobaus:

          as it is ILLEGAL to film someone without their permission or advising them they are being filmed, something you can not do when driving.

          In some states of America, this is true. In Australia you can film anything from public property, and film anything from private property so long as you have the property holder's permission (there are few a exceptions). Commercially there is a few additional rules (with some nice exceptions as well), but dash cams don't fall into that category.

        • mavis30551 on 31/05/2016 - 10:57
          +1

          @asianbargain:

          I personally dont mind too much.
          I have a white car for this reason and its a part of life that some idiot will one time or another gently or not so gently push their door against your car, especially "mummy" cars in the city with their big SUV's.

          Just this morning I had a car park right against the line giving me about 40cm to get in my car.
          I have rubber guards on so I gently rested the guard against his car and squeezed in, but the point im trying to make is that it can be annoying, its a part of life.

        • takezo on 31/05/2016 - 14:44
          +4

          @asianbargain: I found a slight dent in my car once whilst parked at the station. A note had been left explaining that her kid had done it by accident and for me to get in touch. I messaged back thanking her for doing the right thing and telling her no to worry about it.

          Conversely I've also seen a few people hit cars and then take off. I'm always sure to take down the rego and leave it on the windshield with my details.

    • freakatronic on 29/05/2016 - 17:03
      +11

      If you're out in public, you're fair game for being recorded. Every road has all manner of cameras on it already.

      • Settero on 29/05/2016 - 17:29
        -4

        there is a difference between being allowed to film , and being able to use that film in court. as others have said , no cases have used the footage in aus.

        • Cluster on 29/05/2016 - 17:37
          +2

          So you're saying if my dashcam films a driver running over and killing a pedestrian, the footage cannot be used in a court to identify the car and/or driver? Do I need to get the guilty party's permission to use that footage in court? I highly doubt that is the case.

        • Settero on 29/05/2016 - 17:42
          -5

          @Cluster:
          im not the one making the laws , and i dont even know them that well, what i was saying is that there is to much disagreement on the legality of dash cams for them to be standard in the industry.
          and there is a huge difference between filming in public and filming SECRETLY in public, dash cams are filming others secretly.

          there are many cases in which guilty partys go free because evidence that has been used was obtained unlawfully.

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 18:02

          @Settero:

          there is a huge difference between filming in public and filming SECRETLY in public, dash cams are filming others secretly.

          most dashcam recordings only show the exterior of vehicles. the only times one can see the driver is when they enter or exit their vehicle. they're then in a public place once they step out of their vehicle.

          .

          There are no publicity or personality rights in Australia, and there is no right to privacy that protects a person’s image.

          There is also currently no tort of invasion of privacy in Australia,
          .
          http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-phot…

        • Settero on 29/05/2016 - 18:44
          -4

          @whooah1979: and again, im talking globaly not just here in aus, to make it a standard for Australia would mean a car would have to be designed with recording software/hardware in mind , and most of the world has issues with it thus , it would be very difficult for them to justify the design costs.

        • FirstNameLastName on 29/05/2016 - 19:50

          i've heard it's up to the judge.. that they can allow ill-gotten footage into evidence if it's valuable/reliable enough. unsure tho.

        • freakatronic on 29/05/2016 - 21:08

          Don't know why the negs. Your answer is a good one and I understand what you mean. +1 for you pal.

        • amkssg on 29/05/2016 - 21:17
          +1

          @Settero:

          and again, im talking globaly not just here in aus, to make it a standard for Australia would mean a car would have to be designed with recording software/hardware in mind , and most of the world has issues with it thus , it would be very difficult for them to justify the design costs.

          I have to disagree. Cars are always designed for local markets, and not Global Markets.
          The same make and model of a car with have different interior and exterior features in different markets.
          So, making cameras a standard feature for cars in Australia is not exactly a huge ask.

        • Daabido on 30/05/2016 - 18:15
          +1

          @Settero: Evidence that is gained unlawfully will not always be excluded, depending on it probity value, but it is a fairly high hurdle to jump, especially so in a civil case.

    • trongy on 29/05/2016 - 18:53

      As far as I'm aware, the consent rules apply to the recording of conversations. Hence, the "this call may be recorded …" message you get from many call centres (by continuing the call you are giving implied consent).

      I don't think there's a problem recording video on public roads. On private property the owner's consent is required. There are also strict laws about filming within schools and railway stations, so recording while driving into certain car parks is probably a no-no.

      • Settero on 29/05/2016 - 18:56

        its not just about Australia. very few cars are made just for Australia, the op is asking something to be standard aka built in, not a add on. it would be rather complicated to make it just for the australian market.

        • trongy on 29/05/2016 - 19:28

          You are right, Australia does not drive the world car market. However Australia is not the only country that likes dashcams. It would take a car manufacturer to decide there was sufficient worldwide demand to introduce such a feature. If some countries don't legally allow recording, the manufacturers would probably just disable it in the vehicle's firmware.

          Cameras are increasingly coming being built into cars for reversing, lane departure warnings and collision avoidance. Once the cameras are standard features, they only decision is whether add a recording feature.

        • Utopian on 31/05/2016 - 15:34

          @trongy: I wouldn't say the country likes dashcams, when it'll be in the 5% range (my experience/view)

    • diazepam on 30/05/2016 - 10:31
      +1

      From what I know (have studied a few units of law, albeit not from a pure law degree) the roads count as public places: you are legally allowed to film.
      Even in a public place, you would probably get charged for trespass than actually the "act of recording" if such law did exist.

      "People do not own copyright in their own appearance or image and it is not an infringement of copyright to film or photograph people." http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Filming_in_public_p…

  • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 12:12
    +4

    I don't know about the law, but built in cameras sound like they will be outdated in like 2 years, just like those built in navigation.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:20
      +3

      If you're intending on using your car as a steady cam in the 4k movie you're shooting then yeah, that'd be a problem.

      The cameras are primarily to show the sequence of events in basic detail. Higher quality than what was available cheaply 5 years ago isn't necessary.

      And cars have those navigation systems, right? Even though they'd need much more updating than a camera system would. All the ones I looked at had them as either standard or options. So what's the logic in not having cameras again?

      • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 13:44
        +1

        I kinda don't like the idea of "built in cameras" as much as I don't like the ideas of built in navigations.
        My dad owns a car with camera on the back (I don't think it takes videos, it kinda works with the navigation option my dad has installed, turns on whenever he does reverse) and those things look worse than videos from old digital cameras.

        Next few years, you'd be able to grab something that does 4K, that has good low light camera with 256GB micro SD card really cheap. Even now, you can get a reasonable quality one. All these built in stuff becomes outdated in 2 years time. They rarely get the update that you need and judging how a lot of cars in Australia can go for 10 years, it'd just end up with old technology being stuck on cars.

        Whether there should be an incentive from the government or from insurance companies for owners to install these standalone cameras, that's something different in my opinion.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 13:58
          +3

          I get that you're not interested in them but you're not really giving any reason for manufacturers and people in general not to be into them.

          The main purpose of the camera is not to show things in fine detail but the series of events. Who's moving and in what direction. You don't even need to be able to make out license plates.

          Being outdated will have no impact on this whatsoever. If there's a better quality camera for that video I only ever look at after I've been in a collision and still shows everything I need to prove my point about who careened into who then why would I care how old or pixelated the video is? It's not like a nav system where you have to use it all the time, it just does it's thing and you only look at it when something bad has happened.

          That said 1080p cameras have been pretty standard in phones for 5 years, digital cameras for 8 years and digital video cameras for 10 years. Saying it shouldn't be in cars because they'd just put in 480p cameras is just weird.

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 14:04

          @tantryl: I've seen those cameras and those things look hideous, they look awful at best. I do get your point about how they are to provide certain information and therefore don't have to be at HD. I agree with having a camera because of that. I mentioned 480p, because that's what I rate my dad's rear camera's image to be at (probably worse). Can I make things out of it? At night, it's nigh impossible. The visibility seriously depends on the condition.

          I simply think it's better to have the installation by the owners being incentivised by the government, if there is going to be a movement towards having these cameras installed. You can uninstall standalone ones, they can be upgraded and the government don't have to create a regulation. You talk about smartphones and cameras, but those things cost several hundred dollars and car manufacturers are not going to use the same quality ones for certain (just look at the navigation system installed on cars, spec wise, they are worse than many of the phones from 3~4 years ago).

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 15:53
          +1

          @Oversimplified: the camera components of smartphones do not cost several hundreds of dollars. Decent 1080p video cameras don't cost much either. You can get a front+rear 1080p set for under $200, no problem.

          And have you seen how much manufacurers charge for options? They charge $100 for a piece of carpet to put on the dash. They would have no problem charging an extra $500 for a camera option. Which you could, of course, choose not to get. But doesn't speak at all as to why it's not an option.

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 16:07
          +1

          @tantryl: Yes, they charge tonnes of cash for hardware that's usually worse than standalone devices. I think I am not being unreasonable to say that they charge tonnes of money for outdated hardwares.

          I think what you are saying, "extra $500 for a camera option", is exactly why I wouldn't want it to be a built in option. You can grab something that probably would perform better, at price under $200. Why make the camera a built in option, when getting something elsewhere is cheaper and better?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:16

          @Oversimplified: Once again you're ignoring my question and answering the question "Would you, Oversimplified, personally get a manufacturer's option cam setup?"

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 16:20
          +2

          @tantryl: Was I? I thought I was implying that I think built in cameras are going to be expensive and it's going to be outdated compared to the options available in the current market already. Also, I think I was implying that looking at how navigation systems are overpriced and underspecced for what you pay for, the built option for camera would probably follow the same pattern. I kinda mentioned how camera on my dad's car looked awful. I apologise if I've rambled a bit, I tend to do that.

          So yeah, I wouldn't want one. I'd rather look into other options. I'd rather look into grabbing something from other places and installing it. It'd be cheaper, would probably perform better and, I'd probably be able to upgrade it few years in.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:38

          @Oversimplified: You've only provided reasons you, personally, think a 1080p camera would be outdated. You made no counter to why they wouldn't still be a useful tool for everyone. You've also made no argument worthwhile with nav systems because nav systems are available options. Saying they're bad is irrelevant because they've available options anyway. Hell, that argument supports the idea of cameras because manufacturers don't care whether they're great and easy to use and maintain or not.

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 16:43
          +2

          @tantryl: I haven't said 1080p cameras are outdated, I've said, built in cameras looked like arse and from what I've seen, they are not 1080p. Even if they provide an 1080p option, I assume it'd be far more expensive than other options in the market.

          If they provide a worse option at higher price, I wouldn't buy one. I don't like built in ones for that reason.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:45

          @Oversimplified: How is it possible you still don't understand that I'm not asking why you personally don't want one?

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2016 - 16:58

          @tantryl: :P It's because I haven't had my cup of coffee this afternoon. I kinda went on about how I don't want it. I kinda mentioned "incentivised by government" bit earlier because I thought you wanted it to be legally enforced to have it installed by the manufacturer.

          Anyways, I kinda wouldn't want it to be an option as well, though those are more based on minor things like how I don't want to be included in the cost price of designing and how I don't want to have the guy try to sell it to me. Anyways, those are fairly minor complaints. While I would go out of my ways to stop people I know from buying those options in, because cheaper, better alternatives out there, as an option, eh, I don't think I can argue against having it as an option (that no one should buy, but an option nonetheless).

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:06
          +1

          @Oversimplified: I completely agree that government mandated cameras is overboard and overbearing.

          In general I, personally, hate accessories. They're ridiculously priced and often very generic. And yeah, salesmen use them as some sort of fake added value or bargaining tool all the time.

          But my point kind of is… that's never stopped them before. So why don't they do it with cameras?

        • iridiumstem on 30/05/2016 - 14:28
          +1

          @tantryl: Well, who knows?

          Though, if I were to guess,

          1. dashcams have not been around for a long time
          2. they can't compete with the aftermarket alternatives, which make it rather risky for them to design an built in option. It'd be hard to get rid of.

          The difference between navigation system and dashcam would be, I guess navigation systems were around before tablets became a thing as far as I remember, whereas dashcams kinda became a thing relatively recently.

          Also, I think another thing might be, it might be just Australia. Since I mentioned this before, my dad's car does have the dash cam (built in, as far as I know). Some people were mentioning that dashcams don't really hold value as an evidence (whether that is true or not, I have no clue), so manufacturers might've not decided to include that as an option.

  • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 12:28
    -7

    Work in the insurance industry and work on car accident claims

    can tell you that in Australia Dash Cam and in built car cam footage CAN NOT be used in claims.

    The law in many states requires you to obtain permission from someone before filming them, or to advise them that they are under surveillance.
    You are unable to do this when you are driving, having a dash cam might give you peace of mind, in the event of an accident an insurer will view the footage, but can not use this in determining who is at fault and if the matter was to end up on court the footage would have zero weight as evidence.

    Just thought i would share.

    • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 12:32
      +3

      This has always been my understanding as well, thanks for sharing.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:34
      +3

      The law in many states requires you to obtain permission from someone before filming them, or to advise them that they are under surveillance.

      Would be much appreciative if you could please state the law which requires permission from third parties for recording in a public place. Thanks.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:40
        +8

        Hmm. Large law firm Slater Gordon disagree with jim: https://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/dashcams-prove-popular-…

        I’m often asked whether dashboard camera footage is admissible as evidence in a court case, and the answer is yes, as long as the dashcam is not used to film a private activity.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:45
          +14

          I've never heard the notion that you need the permission of any third party to record visual footage in a public place, which is why I asked jimbobaus to kindly refer me to the law which prescribes so. Given that he explicitly claims to be working in the insurance industry, this shouldn't be too difficult for him.

          The places which advise that you are being monitored by cameras are all private places such as stores, malls, private car parks, hospitals, bars, restaurants, etc.

          It'd be rather interesting to obtain permission from all recorded parties if, for example, you were simply recording cars driving past on a highway.

      • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 12:42
        -3

        Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) ss 6–7; Surveillance Devices Act 2000 (NT) s 5; Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) ss 5–6. has a general prohibition on the use of surveillance devices without authorisation or consent, consent can be obtained in the form of a release. Advising a person(s) that they are being filmed by means of public notice that can be viewed prior to person(s) entering field of surveillance is considered under the act as obtaining consent.

        Also the Road Safety Act in both NSW and VIC states that authority to film from the relevant road authority is required priorto using a camera whether fixed or otherwise on a motor vehicle on a public road.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:49
          +5

          From what I can tell that only applies to private and commercial situations: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/3-overview-current-law/…

          Legislation exists in each of the states and territories that variously restricts the use of listening, optical, data and tracking surveillance devices. These surveillance device laws provide criminal offences for using a surveillance
          device to record or monitor private conversations or activities, for tracking a person or for monitoring information on a computer system.^33 The surveillance device laws also place restrictions on communicating information obtained through the use of a surveillance device.

          ^33 Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT); Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW); Surveillance Devices Act (NT); Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld); Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (SA); Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas); Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic); Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA).

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:51
          +20

          Thank you jimbobaus for the resources. I'm in VIC, so let's look at sections 6 and 7 of the VIC Act:

          Section 6 - listening devices

          (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the conversation.

          Section 7 - optical surveillance devices

          (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device to record visually or observe a private activity to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity.

          (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
          S. 7(2)(a) amended by No. 26/2004 s. 7(b).

              (a)     the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device in accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation; or
    (b)     the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth; or
    (c)     the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device by a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty on premises if—
          (i)     an occupier of the premises authorises that installation, use or maintenance; and
          (ii)     **the installation, use or maintenance is reasonably necessary for the protection of any person's lawful interests.**

          A private conversation is defined as:

          a conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves, but does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else

          A private activity is defined as:

          an activity carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be observed only by themselves, but does not include—
          (a) an activity carried on outside a building; or
          (b) an activity carried on in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be observed by someone else

          Please do share the insurance company that you are affiliated with, so that we can all actively avoid that organisation and take our insurance matters elsewhere. If an insurance firm told me I couldn't provide dashcam footage as evidence, stuff the guy who ran into me - I'd see that insurance firm in court first.

        • tomsco on 29/05/2016 - 12:57
          +1

          I think referring to a general prohibition is a bit misleading if quoting multiple states legislation. Looking at the VIC act, it only relates to private matters. Using a public road, I think, would not be classed as private:

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sda1999210…

          Out of interest, do you know the sections in the VIC Road Safety Act that relate to requiring authority to film.

        • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 13:14
          -2

          @KaptnKaos:
          Won't be sharing the company
          I can tell you that the law in regards to accidents and determination of fault is insurance company wide.
          The court system will also not use camera footage when a claim
          Is being disputed.
          The courts consider you driving your car to be a private activity and hence why I think the industry and the courts won't accept the footage as evidence in claims.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 13:35
          +9

          @jimbobaus:

          The courts consider you driving your car to be a private activity

          Hahahaha excellent laugh mate. Have a happy Sunday.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 13:43
          +3

          @jimbobaus: As I said in another post large law firm Slater Gordon disagree with jim: https://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/dashcams-prove-popular-…

          I’m often asked whether dashboard camera footage is admissible as evidence in a court case, and the answer is yes, as long as the dashcam is not used to film a private activity.

        • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 13:44
          +3

          @KaptnKaos:
          Well I have in the past year taken 47 cases to court in Victoria which contained footage.
          In 100% of the cases the judge refused to accept the footage as evidence

        • jimbobaus on 29/05/2016 - 13:49
          +2

          @tantryl:
          Slater and Gordon often represent clients in cases where we are seeking payment for at fault claims (uninsured driver) and in every case I've been involved in the judge has refused to accept the footage as evidence for the reasons I have stated above.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 14:04
          +1

          @jimbobaus: Huh.

          I'm guessing you can't but I wish you could link the public records of those cases.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 14:14
          +2

          @jimbobaus: https://dashcamsaustralia.com.au/resources/dash-cams/

          Legal considerations

          Dashcam video has been used successfully in traffic cases overseas to prove just what occurred in the incident; for example, to show that the other car ran a red light. In a case where it would be your word against the other driver’s, a video recording might be a very useful backup (or not, if it proves you were the one at fault). Police cars are commonly equipped with these cameras. It’s said that dashcams have saved some Australian drivers from fines, or helped their insurance claims, but we aren’t aware of any Australian court cases where a consumer’s dashcam video has been used in evidence.

          Using a dashcam is legal, provided you don’t manually operate it while driving and it’s mounted properly. As with a GPS or any other dashboard/windshield mounted device, the camera should be in a fixed mounting and must not obscure your view of the road ahead, behind and to either side of the vehicle. Recording video while driving on public roads is OK as privacy concerns don’t generally apply in public spaces, but think carefully about how you use the resulting videos. There should be no problem showing them to the police or insurers, but it might not always be OK to post them online.

          This site would, if anything, be biased to say the opposite of what you're saying. And they're agreeing with you. Hard to argue with that.

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 14:20
          +1

          @tantryl:

          The cases should be here http://www.austlii.edu.au/

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 14:35
          +4

          @whooah1979: Without knowing which specific ones to look up that's not unlike saying you can find Nemo here: http://i.imgur.com/y3GSvhb.jpg

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 14:41
          +1

          @tantryl:

          I haven't read the whole case, but a dashcam recording was used as evidence in this case.

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWI…

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 14:46
          +1

          @whooah1979: after a quick skim… isn't that because it has nothing to do with a road accident?

          It's a truck driver being fired. He's in a truck owned by the company with a dash cam owned by the company. They used the dash cam footage to fire him and he's (unsuccessfully) contesting that firing, therefore the dash cam footage is in play. It doesn't seem like this would translate to a regular collision.

        • teardrops21 on 29/05/2016 - 17:51
          +2

          @jimbobaus: Geez it would be funny if the same laws applied to speed cameras, red-light cameras, toll cameras.

        • tomsco on 29/05/2016 - 21:55
          +4

          @jimbobaus: you say you've taken 47 cases to court, yet you explain why you think, not know, why the industry and courts won't use the video as evidence. You've also quoted the incorrect act above and tried to blame it on being on your phone as if it was a typo.

          You have also blindly listed several acts without being able to point to the particular section where it states that th video is inadmissible in court.

          If you can direct be to a section to the acts that support your claim, I would have more faith in what you are saying. As it is, I reckon you just work in a call centre for an insurance company and some higher up has spewed crap to you that you've taken as fact.

          And luckily I'm with AAMI who, as quoted, do accept dash cam footage and not with you insurance company.

        • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 22:02
          +1

          @teardrops21: Great point, irony is a cruel mistress…

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 12:38
      +1

      Cool. Thanks for the information.

    • Amour on 29/05/2016 - 13:12

      Not sure if that is the case in Qld. Police have charged motorists based on dashcam and GoPro footage. Surely they wouldn't do so if it wouldn't stand up in court?

      • diazepam on 30/05/2016 - 10:39
        +1

        I believe these people are monetising from such GoPro footage which then raises different legal (and ethical) aspects.

        I'm not aware of QLD but in NSW I've had a crash before where the police asked to take my dashcam sd card… I was in too much shock not to say no, but I did feel like there was evidence of wrong doing not related to the crash. I did not receive my sd card back, but I didn't receive any fines or the like. Some part of me thinks that the cop didn't want his life complicated? Anyone know if police could legally seize such evidence, and if that would be evidence of a fine? (I have a GPS tracker with the dashcam)

    • Cluster on 29/05/2016 - 17:40
      +4

      Interesting. So if a dashcam records my car running over and killing a pedestrian, and there is no other evidence that I am the guilty party, I get to go free from court because I haven't given permission to be filmed committing a crime?

      I love how the law works.

    • asianbargain on 31/05/2016 - 08:42
      +1

      I wonder what insurance company you work for ?

      So you saying if my dashcam record a murder, or accident, it still couldn't use as evidence ?

  • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 13:06
    +1

    This may or may not apply to devices used for filming http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-phot….

  • Sawtell on 29/05/2016 - 14:56
    +2

    Dash cam footage is used in court in NSW every day. As long as there is someone willing to attest to the authenticity of the video then the magistrate could not refuse to admit it.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 15:55
      +1

      If you could provide some examples that'd be helpful. As above it looks like even advocates of dash cams like dashcamsaustralia.com.au are saying they can't be used in court.

      • tomsco on 29/05/2016 - 21:35
        +2

        Didn't say it can't be used, just says it hasn't been used for evidence.

  • Sawtell on 29/05/2016 - 16:00
    +1

    There are no differences between the police in car video (which are used in court every day) and public consumption dash cams. The only difference is the the way the recordings are handled for storage and later retrieval. If you can establish he authenticity/probity of the video then it should be admitted.

    This of course is in NSW. The references above to the surveillance devices act obviously do not refer to the NSW act as the NSW legislation specifically authorises the use of 'dash cams' in vehicles with the users/drivers/owners consent.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:17
      +1

      Which legislation?

      • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 16:26
        +1

        Which legislation?

        not exactly a dashcam, but close enough.

        Having cameras on helmets isn’t just for fun and capturing memories. Much like dash cams in cars, portable action cameras like the GoPro allow motorcycle riders to record footage for insurance and safety purposes.
        http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/02/gopro-on-motorcycle-hel…

        .

        It was described as one of the "worst examples of driving in Victoria's legal history" by prosecutors, who successfully used the footage in the case against the driver.
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/police-warn-against-vi…

        note how a police vehicle fup in vid below.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:39
          +1

          That answers a different question - whether it's legal to have a camera or not.

          It's not about using dash cam or go pro footage in collision situations.

      • Sawtell on 29/05/2016 - 16:39
        +1

        The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s8

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join