# Dash cam saves Toronto driver from collision scam



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Any of you have a dash camera?

I'm thinking of getting one to protect myself from scum like this.

http://ca.autoblog.com/2012/02/14/dash-cam-saves-toronto-driver-from-collision-scam/#continued

A $100 investment would be worth it if it saves me $1000 or more on insurance premiums.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Haha, look at the camera! Love it. Everyone needs one of these.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I don't understand why the insurance would deem the car behind at fault?

I know in Ontario they have a booklet (which you can find by googling) detailing the criteria for every situation, who is at fault, etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm shocked that the cops were not interested in pursuing a case of insurance fraud. If they prosecuted cases like this, fraudsters would be deterred from staging these fake accidents to extort money from other drivers.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I video everything on loop in HD with my nav system aka iPhone. Too easy for anyone to lie after the fact

Nowadays with cheap cams and memory cars should have front and rear cams built in with a recorder imo. Buses/taxis have them in other countries but not Canada that I've seen


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Dash cam is probably not a bad idea in the case of a "rear ender" that
isn't an obvious case..but something is not quite right here..my FFF's..

<quote from the youtube link>
_"Traveling on Ontario's busy Highway 401, in stop and go traffic, when the *Acura in front of him began to roll backwards into him*. In the ensuing conversation, the Acura driver asked for $500 cash to repair the damage to his bumper. We'll let the original poster tell his tale:"_

How can a vehicle travelling forward at 100km/h "roll backwards"????
He had to have lost power or put the car in reverse. I don't actually see the other driver rear ending him at speed
as the driver appears to be slowing down as well and both cars actuallys stopping and the careless drivers getting out
with traffic whizzing by at full speed..a stupid move and that could get them both severely injured or even
killed!

The camera does not show..the actual part of the "alleged fraud", where the two cars "touch bumpers", 
only the two drivers getting out and "discussing" the matter.

The only thing that seems plausible here...is because you can't just go from
D to R in an automatic AT SPEED without some serious damage to the
transmission and possibly losing control in the process.

So..either the fraudster driver had stopped in the middle of a multilane hiway and
put it in reverse on purpose to back onto the median and the other driver
didn't expect him to backup right there and couldn't slow down in time
and hit him 

or 

The driver was following too close and didn't look ahead to "get the
big picture"..yes people do stupid things on the road..that's why we
have so many preventable accidents.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Jungle said:


> I don't understand why the insurance would deem the car behind at fault?
> 
> I know in Ontario they have a booklet (which you can find by googling) detailing the criteria for every situation, who is at fault, etc.


In a (alleged) rear-ender, the driver in the rear is* deemed to be at fault in almost all cases *as the HTA dictates that every driver has to have his vehicle under control at all times.

The cops didn't witness the "fraudster" stopping in the middle of a busy multilane highway, and his car could have died/lost power or even had a flat tire and he stopped because he could not go any further. 
This is just a scenario of course. 

The stupid part is backing up against high speed traffic because that will usually cause an accident as you cannot merge lanes in reverse to get over at speed, so the first driver in this case was either a fraudster, willing to risk his life
doing a stupid act for $500... or totally irresponsible (and there are lots of them out there thesed days) to attempt to back up in the first place. 

Had the other driver not stopped in time, there would have been a serious accident if the driver behind had to brake violently (or swerve into the other lanes to avoid hitting him). In that case the cops would have had to come to investigate. 

I think in this case, even if no other witnesses stopped around the scene,there would be enough evidence, by just getting the "fraudsters" licence plate, calling police and telling police of an illegal act.


----------



## buaya (Jan 7, 2011)

carverman said:


> The only thing that seems plausible here...is because you can't just go from
> D to R in an automatic AT SPEED without some serious damage to the
> transmission and possibly losing control in the process.


He said his car was a standard and he took off his foot off the brake by accident.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

carverman said:


> Dash cam is probably not a bad idea in the case of a "rear ender" that
> isn't an obvious case..but something is not quite right here..my FFF's..
> 
> <quote from the youtube link>
> _"Traveling on Ontario's busy Highway 401,* in stop and go traffic*, when the *Acura in front of him began to roll backwards into him*. In the ensuing conversation, the Acura driver asked for $500 cash to repair the damage to his bumper. We'll let the original poster tell his tale:"_



Notice that it was stop and go traffic. 

Having been rear ended on the 401 in similar traffic it's certainly very easy to be rear ended as traffic can come to a stop very quickly. So on face value the scam seems very likely story to report and probably easy to pull off.

Glad this guy had a camera to save him.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

I use my iPhone as a dash cam. It captures some amazing footages from time to time. 
There's really no need to spend 100 on one. Used camera and smart phones are available for free.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Just as easily: "Why don't we pull over to the side of the road?"

He does, you don't.

Bye bye!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> The camera does not show..the actual part of the "alleged fraud", where the two cars "touch bumpers",
> only the two drivers getting out and "discussing" the matter.
> 
> The only thing that seems plausible here...is because you can't just go from
> ...


Another lengthy "in depth analysis" Carve, did you even watch the video? The dash-cam-car was stopped and honking as the other car rolled back into him. (not all cars are automatic either)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

buaya said:


> He said his car was a standard and he took off his foot off the brake by accident.


So the road was inclined, he was stopped and the car rolled back or did he
put in in reverse on purpose?

If the car was stopped and rolled back by gravity, it would not be at any
speed, so the bumpers would absorb any minor impact. If he put it in
reverse on purpose to "roll" into the other guy which was either coming
up and braking already or almost stopped but still rolling up to stop behind
him., there wouldn't hardly be any damage there likely.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Another lengthy "in depth analysis" Carve, did you even watch the video? The dash-cam-car was stopped and honking as the other car rolled back into him. (not all cars are automatic either)


Yes, I watched it. I missed the honking part.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

crazyjackcsa said:


> Just as easily: "Why don't we pull over to the side of the road?"
> 
> He does, you don't.
> 
> Bye bye!


But he got out already to examine the "alleged damage:" to his rear bumper,
and the guy in the car acknowledged the "accident" by getting out of his
car which was a mistake on a busy highway.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Young guy in front is a completely incompetent spoiled brat who probably just got his new manual Acura from daddy, has no freaking clue how to drive (manual or otherwise), and has never read a newspaper or done any critical thinking in his life.

Evidence:
Rolling backwards 6 feet on gently graded highways (impossible for a competent person to do even their first time in a manual car - just hit the breaks)
GETTING OUT of the car on the highway - holy crap this guy is dumb! Also have to scold the other drive for this too, especially since it`s clearly just a nudge to his front bumper, hardly something worth risking any amount of safety for..
Guy in front tries to extort money out of rear driver
Guy in front thinks having a camera and filming him is illegal (lol)

The part that irks me the most though is the police reaction.
For published commentary on police neglect the interests of the public who they are supposed to serve, everyone should read this article from the Globe http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/cheney/minor-traffic-infractions-a-major-police-distraction/article2331019/


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Trying to do a private settlement where you pay $500 and not report the incident is illegal, and pretty good evidence that this was attempted fraud.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Is that the case? Not that I drive much, but any minor fender bender that was my fault I would make every effort to offer apologies and pay for the guy's damage. Why would I want to report it to the police when they won't even care about it anyways!

I guess the insurance companies need their ways to jack up insurance rates whenever humanly possible though...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> Is that the case? Not that I drive much, but any minor fender bender that was my fault *I would make every effort to offer apologies and pay for the guy's damage.* Why would I want to report it to the police when they won't even care about it anyways!
> 
> I guess the insurance companies need their ways to jack up insurance rates whenever humanly possible though...


If you report to the police, it doesn't go automatically to the insurance companies, I believe you have to report it yourself.

The problem here is that you may have to go to court to fight it, if the guy reports it as a rear-ender and even if you manage to capture some of it on video..and these days, you are not supposed to drive with the cell phone stuck to your ear (fines for that if caught)..so by the time you reach for the cell phone, the "action" that you want to record is already over.

The car camera makes a lot of sense, as long as it's turned on all the
time..but I'm not sure if it would stand up in court...if you had to go to
court (with the police report and knowledge of your insurance company
that you were involved) to fight any scam where the other guy is trying
to blame you for his stupid mistake and collect on it.

Lets face it, unless you have an independent witness who saw what happened and hangs around to give you his name, address and phone number and is willing to testify in traffic court...I doubt that the car camera is going
to get you very far with the insurance company.

If you don't pay up and he reports it as an "accident" to his insurance, his insurance could contact yours..unless of course, he forgets to take down your licence plate number and description at the scene and calls it into the cops..who may or may not show up at the scene, if the damage is estimated to be less than $1000 these days and nobody is hurt.

It's certainly a dilema.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Trying to do a private settlement where you pay $500 and not report the incident is illegal, and pretty good evidence that this was attempted fraud.


Lots of people do it...especially those that have had more than one accident in 6 years and all the accidents are deemed to be their fault. The insurance company would consider the driver (innocent or not), to be at faul, t and jack up his insurance premiums big time! 

The issue here is "attempted fraud"..if the car behind actually contacted the bumper of the idiot rolling back, then it's a difficult issue to resolve.

If the driver behind sees the idiot rolling back and puts his car in reverse to avoid it and can't swerve into another lane to avoid the idiot..it's the luck of the draw when it comes to insurance settlement, whether it's considered 50-50 or 100% at fault..if the idiot reports the "damage" to his insurance company saying he was "rear ended"..which his insurance
company will then assume that the driver behind is at fault..especially if they know who it is.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

So now surveillance cameras are good for nothing? Insurance companies and judges are quite used to the concept of analyzing video evidence. Dash cams are fairly cheap and common for a few years now


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> So now surveillance cameras are good for nothing? Insurance companies and judges are quite used to the concept of analyzing video evidence. Dash cams are fairly cheap and common for a few years now


You would have to get the court to admit the dash camera as evidence, so
it means you really have to take the case to court. Cop dash cameras are
a different matter because they are authorized to use them as evidence.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Did you learn this in divorce court? Or do you have a reference? Or you're just making stuff up?

The poster of this video claims his insurance company accepted the raw video. My insurance company has often asked for photos and video of my cars/belongings. If you think a video can't help your case you're very mistaken.

A video is better than a witness. It's easier for an accused to challenge what a witness says than what a video shows


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Trying to do a private settlement where you pay $500 and not report the incident is illegal, and pretty good evidence that this was attempted fraud.


This isn't illegal, at least not in AB to make a cash settlement, as long as both parties agree. However, you have to be sure they don't come aft you later, so it's a good idea to get a letter/contract for the agreement. I had my lawyer friend draft one up, and get them to sign it once they receive the monies.


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm confused about the discussion going on here. I watched the full video and the cars drive, stop and the car in front starts rolling backwards towards the stopped car in the rear. The guy in the rear honks many times as the Acura rolls into the front of his car. If you watch the dashes on the road it is clear that the rear car is at a stop whilst the Acura rolls into him. 

I would have recorded the conversation when i talked to he guy so he could be charged with obvious fraud.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> *Did you learn this in divorce court? Or do you have a reference? Or you're just making stuff up?*
> 
> The poster of this video claims his insurance company accepted the raw video. My insurance company has often asked for photos and video of my cars/belongings. If you think a video can't help your case you're very mistaken.
> 
> A video is better than a witness. It's easier for an accused to challenge what a witness says than what a video shows


Scarcastic remark there my FFF. Lets say that you and I will always disagree.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> This isn't illegal, at least not in AB to make a cash settlement, as long as both parties agree. However, you have to be sure they don't come aft you later, so it's a good idea to get a letter/contract for the agreement. I had my lawyer friend draft one up, and get them to sign it once they receive the monies.



Good point there P.A. I've never had a situation where I could settle for the damage for cash on the spot where it
happened. 
However, in some cases a "gentlemen's agreement" may come back to haunt you, IF the "crash victim" finds out later that there is more hidden damage when the vehicle goes on the hoist. In that case there is always the possibility they can come back and ask for more money..if you don't get a sign off and pay by check or some way that the payment is recorded.

And these days with so many out there, playing extortion and fraud games you would need a witness to sign as well that you indeed paid them money up front...or report it to your insurance company and let them handle it, even if it means your premiums might go up.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

jcgd said:


> I'm confused about the discussion going on here. I watched the full video and the cars drive, stop and the car in front starts rolling backwards towards the stopped car in the rear. The guy in the rear honks many times as the Acura rolls into the front of his car. If you watch the dashes on the road it is clear that the rear car is at a stop whilst the Acura rolls into him.
> 
> I would have recorded the conversation when i talked to he guy so he could be charged with obvious fraud.


If you watch the dash line on the left and the front car backing up, it definitely appears that the dashed lane marking line and it's relationship to the car would indicate that the driver was rolling back..but after the horn blasts
a few time..it appears that the Acura car is moving "slightly forward" as well. This may be because after he released the
brake (with the clutch in), he lets the clutch engage and that stops the car from rolling back. 

I didn't see any evidence of an hard impact which would have propelled the car forward though. 

How would your record the conversation?


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

At 12 seconds the rear car comes to a dead stop. Just before 13 seconds the acura starts rolling backwards.

At 16 seconds the rear driver starts honking. At 17.5 seconds the Acura hits the rear car.

So the rear car did nothing wrong. He stopped dead and was then hit by the Acura - the Acura is the only car moving.

I would have used the voice note on my phone to record what they guy said so I can prove that he tried to scam me.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

carverman said:


> You would have to get the court to admit the dash camera as evidence, so
> it means you really have to take the case to court. Cop dash cameras are
> a different matter because they are authorized to use them as evidence.


It depends on the type of court? I think this case would go to small claims court where it is up to the judge to determine whether to admit evidence or not, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Causalien said:


> I use my iPhone as a dash cam. It captures some amazing footages from time to time.
> There's really no need to spend 100 on one. Used camera and smart phones are available for free.


But an iPhone isn't good enough for my liking because:

I want a camera that I can just leave in the car and forget about, that will automatically turn on when it detects motion and turn off when it doesn't, both when my engine is on and when it's not. Higher end dash cameras will do this. I also want it to be small and discrete enough that you can mount it and it won't be visible to a thief. I also want it to be hooked up directly to the car's power supply without wires running all over the place from a cigarette lighter. A common install I've seen is mounting it right under the rearview mirror then running a very short wire and tapping into the dome lights power in the overhead console.

I'm thinking of getting the Blackvue DR400, it's tiny, records in high-def, and even has a GPS that add position information to the videos: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?...20144020785&redirect=Dlog&widgetTypeCall=true


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> It depends on the type of court? I think this case would go to small claims court where it is up to the judge to determine whether to admit evidence or not, correct me if I'm wrong.


_"Evidence presented in a small claims court case must be relevant, and in most cases relevant evidence will be admissible. In order for a piece of evidence to be relevant,* it must show that an important fact of the case is either more likely to be true or less likely to be true*."_

I_n many instances in small claims court, a party may wish to present written, recorded or photographic evidence.
_

Since the dash camera is recorded evidence, it would be up to the judge, I would think. However, a date/time imprinted on the video would be
beneficial, I would think.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Date/time is usually stamped on the video (like the video in this thread) Many also have gps map data that can be displayed. I think the important factor is reading the licence plate and/or seeing faces as well. The hard wired ones are the best way to go. It would be nice if manufacturers would add this to the security package and ins companies would give a 10% discount (at least). But of course, neither of those are much good for business.

When you edit a video, it has to be processed and many things change. It's not hard to detect a typical edit, although an expensive lawyer could probably fight a video (an expensive laywer can fight murder if you're a rich football player) A video with a face is pretty hard to fake and it's pretty strong evidence imo. If a jury is involved a video would be gold whether it's faked or not.

If it's not in court, your ins company should gladly use the video to make the other company pay. If your ins company refuse the video (because they're old school or want to raise your ins or something who knows) The youtube vigilantes will take over. The video in this thread has gone viral and people are going to the alleged scammer's house and taking things way to far on their own. Youtube vigilantes have now put Canadians in jail for rioting


----------



## Navione (Mar 17, 2014)

Causalien said:


> I use my iPhone as a dash cam. It captures some amazing footages from time to time.
> There's really no need to spend 100 on one. Used camera and smart phones are available for free.


I am currently considering one, I heard that there is a specialized app for iphone or smartphones to enable them work as a dashcam, but I'm afraid i have to configure the app everytime I activate it, dedicated dash-cams have features such as automatically committing a portion of video based on user input or accelerometer data, or otherwise doing first-in-first-out; and keeping a log of location from GPS muxed with the video data in some cases. 
how do you think of these? http://www.szswill.com/car-camera.html
any comments?


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Forget about using your phone. That requires you to manually set it up each time you start your car. Anything that requires you to manually do something is not a good setup, because the one time you forget to do it is when you'll get in an accident. Dash cams these days can be found for under $50. They attach to your windshield and plug into your cig lighter. They automatically turn on when your car starts, and automatically turn off when your car turns off. They overwrite the oldest video on the micro sd card so you never have to worry about that. You set it up and forget it, never needing to do anything. I ran the wire from the camera along the roof lining, down the A pillar and under the glove box and into the cig lighter, it is a very neat setup that didn't require taking anything apart.

The most commonly recommended cheap camera is the G1W. It's $50 and records it 1080p.

Here is a website with a list of the most common cams with some info on each one: http://dashcamtalk.com/


----------



## Tightwad (Mar 28, 2014)

I saw that video about a year ago.

Camera or not, that low life inbred would be meeting me one late evening and it would not end up being a pretty sight.

I am amazed the cops were uninterested in viewing the video. I guess it was cutting into their dough-nut break.


----------



## maxandrelax (Jul 11, 2012)

Sherlock said:


> I'm thinking of getting the Blackvue DR400, it's tiny, records in high-def, and even has a GPS that add position information to the videos: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?...20144020785&redirect=Dlog&widgetTypeCall=true


Did you end up getting one? How is it?


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I'm shocked that the cops were not interested in pursuing a case of insurance fraud. If they prosecuted cases like this, fraudsters would be deterred from staging these fake accidents to extort money from other drivers.


I'm not surprised. In Manitoba and other provinces where insurance is government run, they investigate as it's their money being lost on fraud. Unless there's a lot of complaints, and public outcry from citizens I can't imagine police would do anything because they have bigger, harder (ie violent) crimes to deal with.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

maxandrelax said:


> Did you end up getting one? How is it?


No, I got a different one based on suggestions from the dashcamtalk.com site.

Anyone who wants to know more about dash cams should watch this video "A beginner's guide to dashcams" made by Techmoan, it is very well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0Tm9FFpKM


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Definitely something to consider for those who are on the road alot (sales jobs, delivery vehicles, etc...)

I wouldn't be surprised if some companies begin to have them installed on their fleets.


----------

