At the same time, it seems to be OKish to share it to local news media.
So, why 20min can do it and people on youtube not? Maybe a lawyer understands the difference, I don't
Perfectly legal but then in the UK, you can upload your video to the Police server and they can, and do prosecute based on this.
One person's privacy is another person's way of getting away with whatever they want on the roads with a slim chance of the Police doing anything.
There are probably people on this forum who believe that there are no "Gefährliche Schweizer Autofahrer" videos on Youtube because everyone drives so well here.
These cameras record continuously when the vehicle is occupied and also always when driving. When parked the cameras start recording when there is motion nearby. These are saved to a separate file that is not automatically over-written.
Unless specifically required by pushing the camera icon or blowing the horn, driving recordings are eventually over-written on the rather large capacity USB stick that comes with the car...
The police must have their cameras regularly calibrated, and operated according to protocol, for the pictures to be accepted proof. Insurances on the other hand might even have an industrywide (gentleman's) agreement to accept dashcam evidence, simply because it makes sense and they're all equally affected.
You don't need a calibrated camera to video a driver swerving all over the road whilst typing a message on a mobile phone.
Exactly this.
Many moons ago, I was driving in London. In fact, I was stopped at a traffic light as a weird junction (each lane is about one car length behind the next), when a motorbike rammed into the side of the car.
The biker was mildly hurt (broken ankle), and police were called. Cue a few very stressful months, as I was fined for "driving without due care and attention".... which I contested as I was stopped at a light. The biker said I was moving forward into the intersection.
Keep in mind, this was 20ish years ago, so no dashcam. Luckily, the petrol station at that junction did have CCTV, and my lawyer had gotten a copy on a disk.
The courtroom had no way to play a DVD, and I had my laptop (remember they had DVD drives back then?) and played it. The whole court case lasted maybe 5 minutes and was dismissed.
In this case, the CCTV was cr@p - forget getting accurate speed measurements, it was grainy af, and you couldn't read the license plates. That said, you could clearly see a stationary car at a red light, a motorbike swerving and hitting the car.
In terms of cabling, we simply asked our dealer to route it and they did a stellar job.
I was wondering if anyone has used the dash cam footage with their insurance company or authorities. We've been fortunate not to need it so far.
My question was not about defending a speeding matter, but rather being able to dispute a false testimony from the other party in an accident. I want to be able to show if I was in my lane, had a green light, etc. You don't need a calibrated camera to do that.
The police promptly did absolutely nothing with it... there's a thread on here somewhere with a link
I am not surprised that the police in Turin did nothing to help you. It's very common, across the world, for the police to do nothing about property crime. There's too much of it and they're overwhelmed, or they cannot be bothered, or it's waycist to prosecute, or some other reason.
In the past - not in Switzerland - I was involved in a couple of minor accidents and in both situations the other party lied horribly. In the first situation I couldn't get damages (they were at fault but I couldn't precisely prove it), in the second I was lucky that a police car was there when the accident happened and they witnessed it. By the way, the old lady who crashed into me, from behind, while I was stopped at a pedestrian crossing with a pedestrian crossing it, kept telling the police that it was my fault, until they got really annoyed. But who knows, if they hadn't been there...