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

[bob mullen]

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

I was told that the requirements are:
a. Can only last for 30 seconds (even after a crash)
b. Can only have video (no audio without a placard)
c. Can only be on specific spots of the windshield

Googling, I found, I think, the California vehicle codes:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc_index_t.htm

But, I can only find one of the three above, namely:
a. time limit?
b. recording disclosure requirement?
c. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

Do you know how to find the time limit & disclosure rules?

[Steve W.]

http://thelosangelescriminaldefenseblog.com/new-california-law-allows-video-cameras-in-car-what-it-means/
http://www.ehow.com/info_12333580_legal-use-car-dash-camera-california.html
http://www.turnto23.com/news/your-neighborhood/north-river-county/new-law-allows-dashboard-cameras-in-all-vehicles

[bob mullen]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:24:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

> http://thelosangelescriminaldefenseblog.com/new-california-law-allows-video-cameras-in-car-what-it-means/
> http://www.ehow.com/info_12333580_legal-use-car-dash-camera-california.html
> http://www.turnto23.com/news/your-neighborhood/north-river-county/new-law-allows-dashboard-cameras-in-all-vehicles

Wow. 30 seconds after a "triggering event", whatever that means.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:25:53 -0700, bob mullen wrote:

> Wow. 30 seconds after a "triggering event", whatever that means.

Here is exactly what California says it means!
:-)


(13) (A) A video event recorder with the capability of monitoring driver
performance to improve driver safety, which may be mounted in a seven-inch
square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the
driver, in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest
to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, or in a five-inch
square mounted to the center uppermost portion of the interior of the
windshield. As used in this section, ļæ½video event recorderļæ½ means a video
recorder that continuously records in a digital loop, recording audio,
video, and G-force levels, but saves video only when triggered by an
unusual motion or crash or when operated by the driver to monitor driver
performance.

(B) A vehicle equipped with a video event recorder shall have a notice
posted in a visible location which states that a passengerļæ½s conversation
may be recorded.

(C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds before and
after a triggering event.

(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.

(F) When a person is driving for hire as an employee in a vehicle with a
video event recorder, the personļæ½s employer shall provide unedited copies
of the recordings upon the request of the employee or the employeeļæ½s
representative. These copies shall be provided free of charge to the
employee and within five days of the request.

(14) (A) A video event recorder in a commercial motor vehicle with the
capability of monitoring driver performance to improve driver safety, which
may be mounted no more than two inches below the upper edge of the area
swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driverļæ½s sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals. Subparagraphs (B) to (F), inclusive, of
paragraph (13) apply to the exemption provided by this paragraph.

[Jessie Williams]

Ann Marie Brest <annmar...@qualcomm.com> 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?

[Retired]

Are the cameras covered by this law aimed at the driver in the
vehicle, or aimed at the road in front ? Or what ?

[Ashton Crusher]

I find problems with the law and also with the link to the attorney's
comments on it. The law appears to have originally been written to
cover video recordings aimed at monitoring the drivers of things like
taxi's and delivery trucks. As such it made some sense that they
would have a G-force trigger that would save the last 30 seconds,
otherwise it just went away. As I read the law it defines a specific
device, a video event recorder with specific requirements including
the g-force thing. In all of the BS in the law it's clear that the
intent is to not have people sticking the things on the windshield and
blocking their view. So I see two things that eliminate any need to
even follow this law.

1) don't buy a video event recorder. What I mean is, just buy a video
camera that records whatever the hell you want to record for as long
as you want and no g-trigger.

2) after buying it, don't mount it on the windshield, not anywhere.
Mount it on the top of the dash in a place where the driver's view is
not blocked in anyway thru any part of the windshield. If slightly to
the left of center toward the back of the dash in no way obstructs any
part of the windshield from the drivers position then put it there.

If the cops say your are violating the law ask how something that
blocks NONE of the windshield and that does NOT match the specs of the
video event recorder could even be covered by the law. Remember , the
law itself first defines what a video event recorder is and you don't
have one. As long as you haven't blocked any part of teh windshield,
all teh BS about 5 and 7 square inches here there and wherever doesn't
apply. There isn't any law prohibiting video cameras in cars, all
there is is a law saying you can't block the drivers view with
"stuff", plus a specific mention of something you don't own, a video
event recorder. So you don't need to post warning signs for your
passengers either.

I'm not an attorney or judge so no telling how the court or cops would
react when these FACTS are pointed out to them.

[richard]

VER's are a waste.
This law was apparently written by some newbee politician looking to make
his name known.
I'd rather have a full fledged video camera that records continously.

As for recording audio, it's my damn vehicle. If I want to record audio I
don't need to tell the passengers.

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

About the g-force stuff. Most people don't really understand it.
Like they say you pull 10g's going around a corner at 100mph.
As an example.
This is pure bullshit. Realistically, the g-force you DO pull is less than
2.

[Tegger]

richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in
news:1anmmppn95bgk.1...@40tude.net:

>
> 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.


--
Tegger

[bob mullen]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:07:43 -0400, Retired wrote:

> Are the cameras covered by this law aimed at the driver in the
> vehicle, or aimed at the road in front ? Or what ?

Interestingly, they are aimed forward, through the windshield.
The only part of the driver which is recorded is audio.

It seems the "loop" legally must be 30 seconds, which seems
far too little to be of any use.

Or, maybe I'm wrong, but the "triggering" event is 30 seconds
after a crash?

Can someone explain the 30-second rule?

[bob mullen]

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:

[Steve W.]

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.

[deadrat]

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

[richard]

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.

[Jessie Williams]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> 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/

[Jessie Williams]

richard <nor...@example.com> 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?

[Pat Wilson]

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-hard-to-buy-a-decent-dash-cam-473093375

[bob mullen]

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?

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

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.

[Gordon Burditt]

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.

[sum...@carsrecoveryla.com]

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.

Does a sign on lets say a tow truck work as a way of notifying that recording in progress?

[Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:28:37 -0700 (PDT), sum...@carsrecoveryla.com
wrote:

A lot of times those laws were written back before there was any way
to even record video and they only address audio recordings. So if
you are worried, one way around it is to turn off the audio recording,
most car cams have that option. That's one of the reasons stores were
able to put in video surveillance without breaking laws, they didn't
record the audio, just the video.

[Brent]

Read the law regarding how police dash cams are made legal. The correct
way to do this would make it legal for everyone and it may have by
accident been done correctly.

[Coach Mike]

replying to richard, Coach Mike wrote:
How would you know 30 seconds prior to an event that you were going to have an
event? Does this only apply if you are intentionally going to ram another
vehicle?

--
for full context, visit http://www.motorsforum.com/tech/what-is-the-california-law-regarding-dash-cam-time-placard-114210-.htm

[Scott Roe]

replying to bob mullen, Scott Roe wrote:
What it means is that the camera can be capturing video but can only "Save"
30seconds before and after.