Dash cams - Do they actually work?

[Lynxis]

If someone brake checks you and you hit them and you've got footage proving no good reason for them to suddenly brake like that, you'll be looking at split liability. You for following too close and them for reckless driving.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

If someone brake checks you and you hit them and you've got footage proving no good reason for them to suddenly brake like that, you'll be looking at split liability. You for following too close and them for reckless driving.

Nah. They wouldn't get reckless. Careless at the most, and even then, they could get away with the brake check by saying "looked down at the speedo and noticed I was going a bit fast so I put the brakes on. That maniac was tailgating me, that's why he hit me"

Originally Posted by Lynxis

If someone brake checks you and you hit them and you've got footage proving no good reason for them to suddenly brake like that, you'll be looking at split liability. You for following too close and them for reckless driving.

It depends entirely on the situation.

If it's as blatant as this [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g53CQWF4Gxg"]Road Rage - YouTube[/ame] and you show them the dashcam footage on scene, they will most likely get a HTA 172 Charge (immediate towing of vehicle, plus drivers license suspension) according to section 8 of the definitions.

Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or


If it was a subtle brake check, they may get a careless. It all depends on the situation and if you do something equally as dangerous as brake checking to aggravate the driver (such as following too close) you may rack up charges yourself as well.

If you hit the guy and by some chance you, a passenger or a pedestrian gets injured or killed as a result of a blatant brake check, they may get charged with dangerous driving -- unless it was really obvious and really dangerous they probably wouldnt get convicted of this, it would probably get dropped to careless.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Cole

Nah. They wouldn't get reckless. Careless at the most, and even then, they could get away with the brake check by saying "looked down at the speedo and noticed I was going a bit fast so I put the brakes on. That maniac was tailgating me, that's why he hit me"

Oh I may not have been clear, if you hit someone from behind, you will definitely be at fault but split liability may also occur in a brake checking scenario. What the cop will call it depends mostly on how hes feeling that day but reckless driving citations have been given for these scenarios.

I just asked a coworker of mine about when he rear ended someone who brake checked him last winter over black ice. The lead car had winter tires and his had all seasons so his stopping distance was longer and he slammed into them. He was given 70% liability and the car in front got 30%.

Originally Posted by Lynxis

Oh I may not have been clear, if you hit someone from behind, you will definitely be at fault but split liability may also occur in a brake checking scenario. What the cop will call it depends mostly on how hes feeling that day but reckless driving citations have been given for these scenarios.

I just asked a coworker of mine about when he rear ended someone who brake checked him last winter over black ice. The lead car had winter tires and his had all seasons so his stopping distance was longer and he slammed into them. He was given 70% liability and the car in front got 30%.

Liability is entirely dependent on insurance using the Fault Determination Rules and the situation at hand. Again it depends entirely on the situation, but if you send the video of them blatantly brake checking you to your insurance company (yes, you can do this) they will contact the other person's insurance to let them know that they are 100 percent at fault and that you aren't liable. Then again, this is only for purposes of your abstract since we have no-fault insurance in Ontario.

[Cole]

Again, I'd just like to point out, that if some people weren't so anxious to see the license plate on the car in front of them, you wouldn't need to worry about being brake checked. I have noticed no significant increase or decrease in my driving time whether I stay on the bumper of the person ahead of me, or leave a 3-4, hell even 20 car gap sometimes (plus I save fuel since I'm not doing the gas-brake-gas-brake-gas dance that way). Not leaving space for someone to make a lane change or merge is aggressive driving and is a bad habit to get into. If you're so worried about losing 10 feet of space ahead of you, maybe you should leave the house 30 minutes earlier.

And, @ButeraFRS no, brake checking does not fall under s. 172 HTA (Which is actually Stunt Driving). I'd also love to hear about someone sending dash cam footage to their insurance company showing them rear ending someone after being brake checked. I think the company would probably say "Following too closely". Plus there are way too many variables. Like if someone was cruisin down the street in their six-fo and a pedestrian decided the jay-walk right in front of them. Dude in the six-fo slams on his brakes and you rear end him. Do you really think that he's at fault for that accident?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out, that if you do in fact rear end someone and they brake check you, you'll probably end up with a following too close ticket, and possibly even a careless ticket.

Second edit: To clarify, if someone does SLAM (as in come to or almost a complete stop) their brakes and you rear end them, then yeah, fault will be split and both drivers will be charged

Originally Posted by Cole

And, @ButeraFRS no, brake checking does not fall under s. 172 HTA (Which is actually Stunt Driving). I'd also love to hear about someone sending dash cam footage to their insurance company showing them rear ending someone after being brake checked.

What's funny is you have 0 idea how the law works in Ontario, whereas I have first hand experience and have talked to cops on the issue of 172. Phone your local department and ask them what's up before coming on here claiming to know something you have 0 idea about.

PS: The "Stunt Driving" charge is contraversial for that reason -- most of the time it isn't "Stunt Driving". You can get a 172 for lane splitting your motorcycle, this obviously isn't stunt driving, hence its controversial nature.

Again, don't come on a forum and give people ill-advised information you are ignorant about.

What do you think Definition 8 s.2 of the HTA 172 refers to? People trying to do stoppies on motorcycles? If you have 0 idea how the law works, don't claim to know how it works.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by ButeraFRS

Liability is entirely dependent on insurance using the Fault Determination Rules and the situation at hand. Again it depends entirely on the situation, but if you send the video of them blatantly brake checking you to your insurance company (yes, you can do this) they will contact the other person's insurance to let them know that they are 100 percent at fault and that you aren't liable. Then again, this is only for purposes of your abstract since we have no-fault insurance in Ontario.

Yes indeed, everything is situational. In my coworkers case, he had no video but there was a witness who saw the whole thing. At first the cop was going to charge my coworker with following too close and reckless driving and only changed his mind after talking to the witness and then the cop wrote it in as reckless driving for the person who did the brake check. Regardless of this though, the insurance company did a 70/30 liability split because my coworker hit the other driver from behind and was driving on bald all seasons. His premiums didn't go up because he has 1st at fault accident protection and this was his first accident.

Said co-worker has winters on his car this year.

Originally Posted by Lynxis

Yes indeed, everything is situational. In my coworkers case, he had no video but there was a witness who saw the whole thing. At first the cop was going to charge my coworker with following too close and reckless driving and only changed his mind after talking to the witness and then the cop wrote it in as reckless driving for the person who did the brake check. Regardless of this though, the insurance company did a 70/30 liability split because my coworker hit the other driver from behind and was driving on bald all seasons. His premiums didn't go up because he has 1st at fault accident protection and this was his first accident.

Said co-worker has winters on his car this year.

Yeah that's interesting. Insurance companies will use the FDR along with testimony to figure out what happened, if you have video evidence of a blatant break check you are more than allowed to send it in to your insurance company and let them use it as a means to assign liability. It'll most likely end up in your favor if the brake check is blatant ie: the person cuts in front and immediately slams their brakes.

Originally Posted by Cole

And you're any different how? Dubious, anecdotal sources, with no real information to back it up. Lane splitting is completely irrelevant to a topic about cars. Show me specifically where it says brake checking is illegal.

Anecdotal? I provided the ACTUAL HTA LEGISLATION. HTA 172 Definition 8 s.2

Please phone your local police dept and ask them what's up.

See ya.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by ButeraFRS

Anecdotal? I provided the ACTUAL HTA LEGISLATION. HTA 172 Definition 8 s.2

Please phone your local police dept and ask them what's up.

See ya.

What that says is to prevent someone from passing. Simple solution? Don't tailgate, or just pass someone.

Originally Posted by Cole

What that says is to prevent someone from passing. Simple solution? Don't tailgate, or just pass someone.

I can't tell if you're trolling or being aliterate on purpose.


The exact words of definition 8 s.2


ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

[Cole]

Originally Posted by ButeraFRS

I can't tell if you're trolling or being aliterate on purpose.


The exact words of definition 8 s.2


ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

lol at the bold.

Take a lap bud, then chill, then ride your high horse out.

Originally Posted by Cole

lol at the bold.

Take a lap bud, then chill, then ride your high horse out.

Just in case your glasses are in for repair.


have a solid night, brother.