Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
All those "can's", "might's", "often's" ... just point me to some final rulings. Thanks.
You want me to search the internet for civil cases (newsflash - most courts don't allow public access to cases) that resulted in a cyclist winning a case because they had a camera? LMAO!
Your request is a common tactic when an argument is so weak it has nothing to stand on. So I say no thanks but as an alternative I offer you what most call ---> common sense.
Business all over the world use cameras, police use cameras on body and in car, Millions and millions of people use dash cameras and even more use doorbell cameras and /or have then on the exterior of their home.
Why? Well because they record the true and actual facts that are invaluable for recording evidence that can be used later in the event that something happens. Will something happen? Maybe not but if it does they have what they need..
Common sense should answer you request though. If a cyclist with no camera is hit and the driver leaves the scene the chances of that driver getting caught are diminished. Unless a business or a car nearby has a camera and records details and evidence of it. If the cyclist has a camera then you don't need to hope that someone else captured that info. It's right there on your very own camera...