in-car "black box" video cameras

N

Nomen Nescio

Guest
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.
 
Nomen Nescio wrote:
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
The video shown on TV was enough to identify the registration number and the
actions, that was enough.

Turns out the perp was an unlicensed driver with a toddler in the back, I
hope they throw the book at the idiot.
 
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:50:12 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:

On the news last week, there was a story about in-car video footage
being used in a road rage court case. Supposedly the victim's car had 4
cameras (front, rear, left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the
shitty CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras so
you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as VHS tape). I
doubt you could identify an armed robber off it. It should be HD only
for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
No idea, but I'd love to know the tech details.

It has been feasible for about a decade to just have a computer running a
capture card storing pictures/video to a hard disk. Limitations were the
quality of the cameras that you could afford and the size of the hard
disk that you could afford, which implied the limit to the amount of
recording(history).
 
On 16/08/2010 2:28 AM, terryc wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:50:12 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:

On the news last week, there was a story about in-car video footage
being used in a road rage court case. Supposedly the victim's car had 4
cameras (front, rear, left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the
shitty CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras so
you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as VHS tape). I
doubt you could identify an armed robber off it. It should be HD only
for this sort of thing.

No idea, but I'd love to know the tech details.

It has been feasible for about a decade to just have a computer running a
capture card storing pictures/video to a hard disk. Limitations were the
quality of the cameras that you could afford and the size of the hard
disk that you could afford, which implied the limit to the amount of
recording(history).

These days a dvr at 500 or 600 tvl per-cam and 20 to 25 fps is under 400$
Click to expand...
it's getting very affordable

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
On Aug 16, 2:28 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:50:12 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car video footage
being used in a road rage court case. Supposedly the victim's car had 4
cameras (front, rear, left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the
shitty CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras so
you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as VHS tape). I
doubt you could identify an armed robber off it. It should be HD only
for this sort of thing.

No idea, but I'd love to know the tech details.

It has been feasible for about a decade to just have a computer running a
capture card storing pictures/video to a hard disk. Limitations were the
quality of the cameras that you could afford and the size of the hard
disk that you could afford, which implied the limit to the amount of
recording(history).
Click to expand...
I saw such a system installed in a local bar in the early 2000's.
Had 16 camera inputs which appeared to be 2x 8 input cards connected
to a standard PC.
The hard drive light was always flashing like crazy.
Got no idea of the resolution or HDD size but at the time a 900mhz
processor was about as fast as you could get. Video was B/W.

It turned out a good deal though, as one night there was an armed
robbery there after closing, staff were tied up etc, but the entire
thing
was recorded, filming all through the building everywhere the crooks
went,. it went on the local news, and one of the robbers quickly
identified to be a former staff
member who was promptly thrown in the slammer.

These HDD have been available for some years for taxis, buses etc. I
would think now they would
be cheap enough for almost anyone to put in their car. With the amount
of law enforcement corruption - and also the ability
of other parties in any accident etc to bare-faced lie about what
really happened - potentially putting you in the shit,
or copping great expense in either paying for damage and/or defending
yourself in court, these systems might be worth considering.
In the OP's case it turned out to be useful.

IIRC on these US real life "cop" shows, even 20 odd years back they
seemed to
have a camera in the cop car under the bonnet looking forward to
record what was said and done when someone was pulled over.
No doubt these early systems would have used a VCR of some kind in the
boot.
 
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:98022064331a5815eea062da8ffdcc4e@dizum.com...
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.

Based on the limited info above, sounds like both a viable.
 
On 16/08/2010 5:13 PM, The Raven wrote:
"Nomen Nescio"<nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:98022064331a5815eea062da8ffdcc4e@dizum.com...
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.


One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.

Based on the limited info above, sounds like both a viable.




I have two cctv cams in my daily
Click to expand...
but then I got them for little and reversing is easier

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
Clocky wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.

The video shown on TV was enough to identify the registration number and the
actions, that was enough.

Turns out the perp was an unlicensed driver with a toddler in the back, I
hope they throw the book at the idiot.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with the case, but I have to be honest, based on what
is posted here, the main focus shouldn't be punishing the unlicenced
driver/road rager, but (and I'm serious about this) getting that child
out of such(imo) danger. Any kind of a lunatic who would engage in shit
like this at all, let alone with a young kid in the car, if that isn't
moulding a future sociopath (at abolute best) and indicative of likely
child abuse that goes on behind closed doors (i.e. they take out their
frustrations on other motorists, imagine what they'd do to their own
kids with no witnesses). God help the little one.


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost I knew Sanchez before they were dirty root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov
 
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:50:12 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio posited in:

On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Ok - my Tin Hat protects me from RoadRagers.
In fact I've not even seriously considering outfitting any car with an
array of cameras.

Now I'm getting to think that the driver of the POS Video equipped machine
has to be well paranoid. WELL PARANOID, I mean.

It's even possible that the Video car was so equipped because its driver
was extremely deserving of a touch-up. And knew it damm well, too.
--
Toby.
Caveat Lector
 
John McKenzie wrote:
Clocky wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:
On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.

The video shown on TV was enough to identify the registration number
and the actions, that was enough.

Turns out the perp was an unlicensed driver with a toddler in the
back, I hope they throw the book at the idiot.

I am not familiar with the case, but I have to be honest, based on
what is posted here, the main focus shouldn't be punishing the
unlicenced driver/road rager, but (and I'm serious about this)
getting that child out of such(imo) danger. Any kind of a lunatic who
would engage in shit like this at all, let alone with a young kid in
the car, if that isn't moulding a future sociopath (at abolute best)
and indicative of likely child abuse that goes on behind closed doors
(i.e. they take out their frustrations on other motorists, imagine
what they'd do to their own kids with no witnesses). God help the
little one.
Click to expand...
I agree. He rammed the other car FFS, what a moron.

Anyway, this being WA where justice is a laughable farce at best, he will
probably get a 6 month suspension and a $200 fine.
 
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:13:30 +1000, The Raven wrote:

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message

One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit
4 cameras to their vehicle.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't drive with your eyes open. Look and learn, there are
plenty of examples where you can be held responsible for some other
person's reckless driving, e.g. the lane changer who suddenly shifts in
front with very little gap and then jams on the brakes as they see a red
light ahead.
 
"Toby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:41b08e5cerup$.1plewaui38ok1.dlg@40tude.net...

Ok - my Tin Hat protects me from RoadRagers.
In fact I've not even seriously considering outfitting any car with an
array of cameras.
Click to expand...
Lucky, as it'd be frightfully hypocritcal of you to do so in light of your
view regarding the government doing the same thing to monitor people getting
about town :)

Now I'm getting to think that the driver of the POS Video equipped machine
has to be well paranoid. WELL PARANOID, I mean.
Click to expand...
There's a bit of that going around.

It's even possible that the Video car was so equipped because its driver
was extremely deserving of a touch-up. And knew it damm well, too.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
 
In aus.cars The Raven <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.
Click to expand...
Another suggestion to consider.

3. The driver frequently sees other drivers doing really stupid things
and wants to record these types of events to put on u-tube, etc.. :)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
 
Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote:
The Raven <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.

Another suggestion to consider.

3. The driver frequently sees other drivers doing really stupid things
and wants to record these types of events to put on u-tube, etc.. :)
Click to expand...
There's not enough space for that on the whole Internet, Athol.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
 
In article <8tbpj7xea9.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote:
The Raven <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.

Another suggestion to consider.

3. The driver frequently sees other drivers doing really stupid things
and wants to record these types of events to put on u-tube, etc.. :)

There's not enough space for that on the whole Internet, Athol.

There's probably an incident every ten minutes of driving. Most would have to be
Click to expand...
culled leaving only amusing and/or dangerous stuff.
Here's one that left me amused a while ago. Guy is rushing to the roundabout on
my right, thought best stop (even though I could get in first) and let him go
through to avoid contact, weeks in hospital with discomfort etc. Anyway after
the roundabout he takes the next right without an indicator. What's amusing
about that you ask? It was single occupant vehicle, a driving instructor, with
the word affordable (IIRC) in the name.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
 
"Golden One" <jpburns@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:0df0246b-a91b-47d9-8be5-a7f9a731537e@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
The person had them fitted after they were held to blame for an
accident that was not their fault.
Click to expand...
Wish I had them fitted when I was fined for driving carefully through a
faulty red arrow after I waited 5 minutes for it to change (at 2AM and
nothing else on the road except an unmarked cop car apparently :-(
I would have at least enjoyed playing the footage in real time in court
until THEY go tired of waiting! But whether such evidence would even be
accepted is another matter of course.

MrT.
 
On Aug 16, 3:13 pm, "The Raven" <swilson...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message

news:98022064331a5815eea062da8ffdcc4e@dizum.com...

On the news last week, there was a story about in-car
video footage being used in a road rage court case.
Supposedly the victim's car had 4 cameras (front, rear,
left, right I presume). I wonder if it's like the shitty
CCTV in my uncle's shop - it does a mosaic of the 4 cameras
so you only get 288 lines resolution each picture (same as
VHS tape). I doubt you could identify an armed robber off it.
It should be HD only for this sort of thing.

One has to wonder about what sort of person thinks it's necessary to fit 4
cameras to their vehicle.

Some possible 'justifications' include:
1. Someone who's been a repeated target of abuse for their crappy driving,
but hasn't figured out that THEY are the root cause of the incidents.
2. Someone tin-foil hat wearing wacko looking to make money via vexacious
legal claims.

Based on the limited info above, sounds like both a viable.
Click to expand...
The person had them fitted after they were held to blame for an
accident that was not their fault.

JB
 
On 2010-08-17, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
"Golden One" <jpburns@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:0df0246b-a91b-47d9-8be5-a7f9a731537e@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
The person had them fitted after they were held to blame for an
accident that was not their fault.

Wish I had them fitted when I was fined for driving carefully through a
faulty red arrow after I waited 5 minutes for it to change (at 2AM and
nothing else on the road except an unmarked cop car apparently :-(
I would have at least enjoyed playing the footage in real time in court
until THEY go tired of waiting! But whether such evidence would even be
accepted is another matter of course.
Click to expand...
If you stop in the wrong spot the metal detector loop might not 'see'
your car. sometimes reversing a bit triggers the lights.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
 
In article <i4dlep$m8q$2@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, jasen@xnet.co.nz says...
On 2010-08-17, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

"Golden One" <jpburns@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:0df0246b-a91b-47d9-8be5-a7f9a731537e@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
The person had them fitted after they were held to blame for an
accident that was not their fault.

Wish I had them fitted when I was fined for driving carefully through a
faulty red arrow after I waited 5 minutes for it to change (at 2AM and
nothing else on the road except an unmarked cop car apparently :-(
I would have at least enjoyed playing the footage in real time in court
until THEY go tired of waiting! But whether such evidence would even be
accepted is another matter of course.

If you stop in the wrong spot the metal detector loop might not 'see'
your car. sometimes reversing a bit triggers the lights.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Wonder if it was Toowoomba Qld. Going back about 15 years ago, the lights never
Click to expand...
change late at night if you are on a motorcycle... sitting there and there is no
other traffic for fuck*ng kilometers. It would be one giant arseh*le of a cop
that would book you for going through them.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
 
On Aug 17, 10:25 pm, Albm&ctd <alb_mandctdNO...@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
In article <i4dlep$m8...@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, ja...@xnet.co.nz says...

On 2010-08-17, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

"Golden One" <jpbu...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:0df0246b-a91b-47d9-8be5-a7f9a731537e@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com....
The person had them fitted after they were held to blame for an
accident that was not their fault.

Wish I had them fitted when I was fined for driving carefully through a
faulty red arrow after I waited 5 minutes for it to change (at 2AM and
nothing else on the road except an unmarked cop car apparently :-(
I would have at least enjoyed playing the footage in real time in court
until THEY go tired of waiting! But whether such evidence would even be
accepted is another matter of course.

If you stop in the wrong spot the metal detector loop might not 'see'
your car. sometimes reversing a bit triggers the lights.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---

Wonder if it was Toowoomba Qld. Going back about 15 years ago, the lights never
change late at night if you are on a motorcycle... sitting there and there is no
other traffic for fuck*ng kilometers. It would be one giant arseh*le of a cop
that would book you for going through them.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is the main purpose of the cops, fund raising. Its
not like it used to be.

It wouldnt be unthinkable for some arseholes running behind on their
fine "quota" to setup a situation like
this as a cash cow.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top