Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

This is yet another story that makes a very convincing argument for a dash cam. I do not own a dash cam, but I was involved in an accident where the other car had a dash cam, and it made the entire process relatively painless.

I was actually found at fault, but the officer who responded said the person who hit me would have been found at fault if they didn't have a dash cam. I had entered a busy street that only allowed left turns via U-turns in the median. Traffic was really heavy, and I was having a hell of a time getting over. A bus next to the U-turn lane waved me in. I entered the left turn lane about a car length past where the solid white line began. As I was entering, a teenager in a 500+ hp car floored it in to the lane. As soon as they got around the bus they saw me, but couldn't stop in time as they were nearly going the speed limit.

I was technically breaking the law, and the kid who hit me technically had full control of the lane before I did, so I was at fault.

I know both me and the person who hit me wished we had done things differently there. We were both pretty impatient because of the traffic. It would have been nice to have been found not-at-fault, but I was technically in the wrong, and the dash cam proved it.

Dash cams get a lot of press when it comes to attempted fraud, but I think cases like this are the real kicker. I know other people who have hit people who made lane changes in front of them, and they were all found at fault. Without a video camera, the vehicle behind is almost always going to be found at fault when it comes to one driver's word against another. It's really difficult to prove something like an "unsafe lane change" without video evidence, and dash cams cost far less than a deductible.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact