Quote:
Originally Posted by och
Same location from someone elses dashcam footage. The road is ridiculously well lit with absolutely no shadows.
|
that is exactly what I meant when I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK
But you're judging this based on that the camera is as good as your eye.
I dont know if you have a dashcam or do dashcam testing, but the naked eye can see so much more than a camera can.
I dont know if the naked eye could have spotted the victim in time, but it sure could have spotted it earlier than when looking at dashcam footage.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK
Sure these conditions are tretcherous but judging it from a dashcam holds no real connection to real world situations because the eye sees things differently than a camera.......
I can easily make a video with a dashcam where someone is inviseable where they are in real situ easily seeable.
|
In reaction on IK6SPEED counting frames and stating it as fact that the driver couldnt see it because of that dashcam footage.
IF something like this goes to court this will certainly be addressed on this level.
I mean it can be clearly seen that the person in the car isnt paying attention to the road (which is his/her job, the person is there to supervise the test), so if the victim was visible it will be another case (if the situation matches that last footage). That a pedestrian doesnt have right of way doesnt automatically mean you dont have to brake before him if he crosses the road. That someone crosses the road and doesnt yield, doesnt give you the right to run him over.
It takes the blame away if you hit him/her and you couldnt do anything about it. But not watching the road is not the same as not being able to do anything about it. Not watching the road and therefore not seeing him/her is a deliberate or intended action from which the results are clear. Watching the road and not seeing him (for instance looking at other things on the road) or even not braking hard enough, is not a deliberate action but non intended judgement error.
At least this is how things are often looked at in courts. Thats why for example drunk driving and causing an accident, or phone texting and causing an accident are treated very differently than causing an accident because you steered incorrectly or judged a distance wrongly.
The last two are non intenional errors, but the first two arent. The reason is that everyone knows when they dont look at the road or start drinking before driving their driving capabilities are impaired.
The police said apparantly that the driver wouldnt have been able to spot the victim/prevent the crash, but if I see that last cam footage.... lawyers and external experts are gonna have a field day when this goes to court with proof that the driver/supervisor wasnt looking at the road....
