Car DVR footage for...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Car DVR footage for traffic collision case

Blocker
(@blocker)
New Member

CLICK HERE for YouTube video

Clip captured by a BlackVue DR500-GW in a southbound vehicle (2011 black Subaru WRX) shows the car failing to stop at a red light as an eastbound vehicle (alleged to be a 2009 Jeep Patriot) approaches the intersection.

Client (driver of the Subaru) alleges the driver of the Jeep intentionally caused a collision and that the collision occurred south of the intersection. Video enhancement of one frame was successful (012 on the video) in revealing the grille of a vehicle approaching from the right but does not allow calculation of the vehicle's speed.

Questions

With the poor quality video, but with more frames similarly enhanced, could the image of the vehicle approaching from the right be shown to be consistent with a 2009 (orange) Jeep Patriot?

Does the fact the time/date stamp is incorrect call the speed stamp present on the video into question?

Assuming a Jeep can be identified, can any fault by the driver of the Jeep be inferred from or proven by the footage?

The client alleges a pedestrian was crossing the street from the left of the camera and that subsequent to the collision, the driver of the Jeep made a remark consistent with the claim that the Subaru had been targeted by the driver of the Jeep for not having paid attention to the pedestrian and for running a red light. The witness statements show no relationship between the pedestrian or the two drivers. The pedestrian claims to have witnessed the Jeep change trajectory "to avoid the car", which is consistent with the Jeep driver's statement. GPS metadata is consistent with the Subaru having been in the center lane of a 3-lane highway and is also consistent with an impact having occurred south of the intersection.

All help is appreciated.

Regards,

d**k

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 17/02/2014 7:21 am
Jamie
(@jamie)
Community Legend

d**k,

I'm aware that the forum video code is not working as expected and will be looking at a fix. In the meantime, I've edited your post to make the YouTube URL clickable.

Jamie

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/02/2014 1:33 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Community Legend

With the poor quality video, but with more frames similarly enhanced, could the image of the vehicle approaching from the right be shown to be consistent with a 2009 (orange) Jeep Patriot?

Does the fact the time/date stamp is incorrect call the speed stamp present on the video into question?

The speed of the video on the dashcam is presumably from the GPS in the dashcam. It is unusual that a dashcam with built-in GPS has incorrect clock, as GPS enabled devices tend to have their clock synched from the satellite.

The speed of the WRX can be determined, presuming that the clock within the DVR (dashcam) is reasonably correct. The time & date stamp does not have to be correct, just that the dashcam clock 1 second is close to, or near to 1 second. Check distance between lamp posts that are shown being passed just before the accident. Check the elapsed time between multiple lamp posts. Calculate speed. I used similar method by counting the lane separator markings.

Assuming a Jeep can be identified, can any fault by the driver of the Jeep be inferred from or proven by the footage?

How can those two corners meet if the two vehicles travel at 90 degrees to each other?
Did you notice the curvature of the overhead sign bars? What does that suggest to you regarding the Jeep's position?

Was the Jeep behind the WRX, attempting to make a lane change or a right turn too soon? This is where the pedestrian can come in play.

The client alleges a pedestrian was crossing the street from the left of the camera and that subsequent to the collision, the driver of the Jeep made a remark consistent with the claim that the Subaru had been targeted by the driver of the Jeep for not having paid attention to the pedestrian and for running a red light. The witness statements show no relationship between the pedestrian or the two drivers. The pedestrian claims to have witnessed the Jeep change trajectory "to avoid the car", which is consistent with the Jeep driver's statement. GPS metadata is consistent with the Subaru having been in the center lane of a 3-lane highway and is also consistent with an impact having occurred south of the intersection.

Your GPS data is not going to sufficiently accurate down to the specific lane - if I am on the other side, I can shoot holes in that the size of a Titanic iceberg…

Scenario
WRX in center lane going South.
WRX almost passes intersection
Jeep traveling from West to South, turns into far right lane of N/S route.
WRX slows/stops to avoid pedestrian
Jeep underestimates distance, and hits back corner of VRX

This is consistent with the collision points and the angle of the Jeep within the curved lense image. What the pedestrian saw was indeed the Jeep trying to avoid a side collision with the WRX.

You need to reverse engineer that curved lens view. I believe the direction your arrows pointing are not on target.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/02/2014 1:20 am
Blocker
(@blocker)
New Member

Thank you jhup,

I have been able to prove the speed stamp is correct but I do not know how to determine the angle of the Jeep as it comes into view (given the lens distortion in the image).

Below is a link to a copy of the raw footage (only those who know the link may view it)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18dmovKBOLPeTJWQW82cWt3LVE/edit?usp=sharing

Intersection location

Latitude - Longitude
53.51614, -113.497678

Lat 53° 30' 58.104"
Long -113° 29' 51.6402"

Screenshot from Google

Once again, thank you for the helpful comment.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 19/02/2014 7:39 am
Blocker
(@blocker)
New Member

Image direct link

Do the lens distortion curves I have applied to the image seem reasonable given that distortion at the front of the car's hood is essentially at a minimum and the max. distortion is at the vertical extremes of the frame?

Can the direction of the Jeep (image on right of screen) be determined from this image?

Thanks,

d**k.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 19/02/2014 3:07 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Community Legend

Note that this is not my expertise, so at best my opinion is simply a layman's guess.

The distortion probably has the perfect straight line further up. That is, extend the top curve and extend the bottom curve (the overhead signage bar, and the bottom of the car window) to create a "cat eye". Then connect the two intersecting points, and draw a straight horizontal line between the two intersections.

I cannot make out the Jeep prior to the impact, but that is where you need to find it. Are there any security cameras nearby? There is ATB Financial, Shoppers Drug mart - both very high possibility of video…

Looking from 030 on, there appears no vehicle next to the WRX. That side of the road also has parking meters. Can you see any vehicles parked there in the video? It appears so, but cannot tell for sure.

What is the JEep owner stating? That they were traveling parallel on 104 St, or turning right from 80 Ave?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 20/02/2014 1:50 am
Blocker
(@blocker)
New Member

So more like this? I think you are right. Can anyone else chime in to confirm?

The Jeep owner states she was approaching 104 St from 80 Avenue and made a right turn.

Thanks again

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 20/02/2014 12:56 pm
pom2
 pom2
(@pom2)
New Member

Based on my own experience investigating such matters I would make the following observations and raise the following questions.

1. Beyond the casual remark by the Jeep driver as to them 'taking advantage of the WRX error/mistake'; in in the absence of an audio recording or independent witness of the comment or subsequent admission by the Jeep driver that they made the comment then (in court) it is one drivers word against the other that this comment was made.

2. I would suggest the main argument is who had right of way at the time.

3. I know in the US you may make a right turn on red if signs present do not dictate otherwise.

4. The WRX ran a red light and that is apparently in the video. If that is the case they are technically liable to that offence.

5. The WRX did not strike the Jeep

6. In the UK we do not assume if the light was red in one direction it was green in the other. We require evidence that the other light was green by a person, cctv, camera or other. So was the light green for the Jeep?

7. If the Jeep had the right to make a right turn on red assuming the road was clear and it was safe to do so then maybe they had right of way? I don't think so as my understanding is that a car turning right on red must give way to traffic on the road they are entering.

8. However it is obvious that the WRX was there and the Jeep still made the right turn.

9. If the Jeep saw the WRX then there was intent.

10. Was the Jeep in the correct lane to make a right turn or were they actually going straight on.

11. In my opinion the quality of the video is extremely poor and distorted so its evidential input is minimal.

12. In my opinion the WRX was wrong to run the red light. But the Jeep should have ensured that the junction was clear before they made the right turn.

13. The Jeep struck the WRX which did not appear to deviate in its path.

14. The fact that the WRX 'ran the red light' does not justify the collision. What if the WRX had failed brakes, or the driver had collapsed or was an emergency vehicle? The Jeep should have give way to the WRX or yielded as they say in the US.

15. So in my opinion the Jeep was at fault.

16. Had the WRX hit the Jeep after running the red light then the WRX would be at fault. Knowing the light was red the WRX driver took a reckless risk to proceed and was not driving with due care and attention for other road users.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 02/09/2015 3:55 pm
Share:
Share to...