What is the California law regarding dash cam time & placard & location limits?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

> California is a "two party consent" state.

These are the dozen all-party consent states:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

But, what I want to know is how the 30-second rule is
supposed to work.

Does that mean that I can record, essentially forever, but,
after a "triggering event" (i.e., an accident), I can then
only record for a further 30 seconds?

Or, does it mean the "loop" has to be a 30-second loop?

What does it mean that California law stipulates:
"Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds
before and after a triggering event."

Jessie Williams wrote:
> Ann Marie Brest > wrote:
>
>> (C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds
>> before and after a triggering event.
>
> What's the rationale for the 30 second limitation?
>

Probably because they don't want to chance the system looping around and
erasing any of the footage. Of course it would also limit the ability to
discover how long it actually takes for help to arrive.

--
Steve W.

On 4/22/14 2:45 AM, Tegger wrote:
> richard > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> As for recording audio, it's my damn vehicle. If I want to record
>> audio I don't need to tell the passengers.
>>
>
>
>
> California is a "two party consent" state. That means that both parties to
> the recording (one of them being you) must be informed of the fact that
> they are being recorded.
>
> A "one party consent" state will mandate that only one of the parties to
> the recording must be informed. And that one party would be you.
>
> Failure to notify both parties in a "two party consent" state usually
> results in the recording being inadmissible in court, and you can be sued
> for failure to notify.
>
> You can Google this.

And if you do, you should find per CA penal code section 631 that this
applies to recording telephone conversations.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:23:17 -0700, bob mullen wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:
>
>> California is a "two party consent" state.
>
> These are the dozen all-party consent states:
> California
> Connecticut
> Delaware
> Florida
> Illinois
> Maryland
> Massachusetts
> Michigan
> Montana
> New Hampshire
> Pennsylvania
> Washington
>
> But, what I want to know is how the 30-second rule is
> supposed to work.
>
> Does that mean that I can record, essentially forever, but,
> after a "triggering event" (i.e., an accident), I can then
> only record for a further 30 seconds?
>
> Or, does it mean the "loop" has to be a 30-second loop?
>
> What does it mean that California law stipulates:
> "Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds
> before and after a triggering event."

You don't understand what this means?
The camera is always recording.as you drive.
When the event happens, a second file is generated that contains the 30
seconds before and after.

I had a camera that would record up to 8 hours. At the end of 8 hours, that
file is deleted and a new one begins.

Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> the law itself first defines what a video event recorder is and
> you don't have one.

That is an interesting insight, and, if it holds, it may be how
a user can get around the 30-second limit.

I guess the question is whether a basic sd-card camera like this
one is a "video event recorder" or not???????

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dash-cam/

richard > wrote:

> With today's technology, I can mount a camera practically anywhere in a
> vehicle I want and you'd never know it was there.

That brings up an interesting legal technicality.

If the camera is /NOT/ mounted *TO* the windshield, is it still
required, by law, to do 30-second loops only?

bob mullen wrote, on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:07:05 -0700:

> I'm told there is a law in California that "allows" dash
> cams, but that there are specific "requirements".

Apparently it's not so easy to find a good dash cam nowadays.
http://jalopnik.com/why-is-it-so-har...-cam-473093375

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:40:18 -0400, richard wrote:

> You don't understand what this means?
> The camera is always recording.as you drive.
> When the event happens, a second file is generated that contains the 30
> seconds before and after.

I still don't understand the 30 second rule.
I understood what you said, which was that there is a
*second* file, created at an accident, of one minute
duration, consisting of 30 seconds before and 30 seconds
after.

But, why not just keep the *original* file (of any duration)
and just add the 30 seconds after the accident?

That is, why create 2 files of the same event?

Jessie Williams wrote:

> Ann Marie Brest > wrote:
>
>> (C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds
>> before and after a triggering event.
>
> What's the rationale for the 30 second limitation?

Possibly this:

>(D) The registered owner or lessee of the vehicle may disable the device.
>
>(E) The data recorded to the device is the property of the registered owner
>or lessee of the vehicle.

It appears as though the law is set up to protect the rights and privacy of
the owner/lessee of the vehicle. Particularly if the unit is installed by
some other party (manufacturer, insurance company, etc.). They don't want
hours of non event related recordings available to other parties. And the
recordings triggered by the event belong to the owner/lessee.

So the question is: If its my car, I'm driving it and I'm OK with longer
than a +/- 30 second window, is that OK?

Also, signs warning passengers about recording probably deal with the audio
recording capabilities and two party consent rules. No audio and the camera
is pointing out the windshield? Probably no sign required.

--
Paul Hovnanian
Have gnu, will travel.

>> the law itself first defines what a video event recorder is and
>> you don't have one.
>
> That is an interesting insight, and, if it holds, it may be how
> a user can get around the 30-second limit.
>
> I guess the question is whether a basic sd-card camera like this
> one is a "video event recorder" or not???????
>
> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dash-cam/

Without further info, I'd interpret the law as setting out specific
requirements for Video Event Recorders, which may be installed by
car manufacturers, insurance companies, and employers. Cameras
that DO NOT meet these requirements (even if it's only the 30-second
requirement) are NOT Video Event Recorders and may not be installed
by third parties. I'm assuming that there is no other law saying that
a vehicle owner can't have a camera at all that this law is trying
to make an exception to.

If you want a camera and some law seems to be intent on making it
illegal to block your view of your own car hood, consider putting
it somewhere else. On the roof. On the front grill next to your
headlights. On the wheels (but don't call them "upskirt cameras"
even if they could be aimed that way). On the front side of your
outside mirrors. Mounted on the bottom of the engine and pointed
forward (but watch out for the camera getting clobbered by bumps
in the road. If the driver can't see it, it can't be blocking his
vision.

Just be sure the camera is in a place where it cannot easily be
stolen.

I heard this same logic being used in another area of law. Some
anal-retentive company representative started giving people a lecture
on how to properly use the trademark of his product, even in casual
conversation. Someone else objected that the improperly-used version
(I believe it was using it as a noun instead of an adjective) is
not a trademark and he could misuse it as much as he wanted.
In any case, everyone but said company representative was using
the name of the product in casual conversation, not for commercial
purposes, was referring to the company's product, not an imitation,
and didn't appreciate the nit-picking from someone who was trying
to sell them something.