CMH:
‘…What is best solution, I want see kind of revenge if possible…?’
Only a small point, matey, but I’d call it ‘justice’ instead - albeit a commodity that’s too often found in short supply in these days.
It shouldn’t come down to ‘luck’ either …and I’m with you 100%
The tipper I was driving at the beginning of the week had four cameras mounted that kicked in below 20mph and gave a panoramic view all around the truck on a digitised screen. Also when the left hand indicator was operated, an audio warning outside of “warning, this vehicle is about to turn left” clearly audible outside the truck. Even with all that stuff on board though, I still treat other drivers as potential idiots and I take nothing for granted out there.
My car has a dashcam fitted and for the first month I had it, nobody did anything wrong at all on the road. 
Whilst I am happy to have them fitted on trucks, one that faced into the cab would either be blanked off, or they would instantly be looking for another driver.
My mate does this .picks a new truck and bam .he’s minted never worked a day in his life
When someone is 100% in the wrong from the start - they are going to push for 50/50 - it’s obvious. Their argument will be along the lines of “Well you didn’t have any footage of me hitting you - so it didn’t happen!”. Insurers tell their drivers never to admit fault at the outset eh?
In my mind 50/50 should be ALWAYS thrown in the face of the offering insurer. Why? - Even if you know you are 100% to blame yourself - if you don’t accept the 50/50 offer, then at least the insurer pays out on your behalf when you end up liable for 100%.
I was rear-ended for a second time in a year back in April - at a roundabout this time. The other person admitted liability straight away (makes a change) and I said "I’d be happy with enough money to touch up the paintwork, say £75… They insisted upon going via the insurance company however, (mine not involved at all this time) and I ended up getting £165 from them - which I consider to be a good result for some scratched paint on my back bumper. 
NOT involving my own insurer in the claim process (as it wasn’t necassary with a 100% admission from the start) - saved me a lot of upset this time with my own insurer, who decided to triple my premium when it came up for renewal - after the higher speed rear-end RTC I had a year ago. The third party insurer insisted I get a prosecution against their driver - before they’d pay me out, so that’s what I did. 
They didn’t serve the interests of their driver very well did they? - Had the other party insurer just gone BOSH here’s a “market value of your car” payout from the word go - their driver wouldn’t have got 6 points, and a £956 fine with costs, primarily for “leaving the scene of an accident” (which put me in the position of having to involve my own insurer in the first instance…)
The-Snowman:
nobodysdriving:
or is there a legal ‘loophole’ that if the person was not ‘warned’ they were being recorded then you can’t use it as evidence?**Its not illegal to video someone in public without their permission,**despite the lycra louts favourite “legal warning” of “this is now being recorded for legal purposes”
I believe it’s an invasion of privacy to publish/post on the internet these images without the subjects permission though.
Going from memory here so happy to be corrected.
You don’t need legal permission to video ANYTHING in public - providing the camera is fixed, and looking at your own property.
If some hapless member of the public wanders into view, commits an act that you can claim from them for, and then tries to claim “Hey he illegally videoed me!” - Just think how that’s going to look in court when the retort question will be "So you admit breaking and entering into this person’s secure camera-covered area then?"
…Let’s add criminal tresspass, criminal damage, breaking and entering (if the windows were broken), and of course driving without due care and attention if the perp “wandered” into the car, rather than “deliberately hit it”…
Either way, any choice - it’s an escalation of merely admitting liability and putting up with a bumped up insurance premium next year for “Losing one’s no claims bonus” eh? 
Read the small print of the insurer though - and it might have the clause in it “We will not go to court without at least a 51% chance of success”.
Things like “Legal Cover” they like to add on - is only useful when you DON’T have that much of a chance. So much for THAT then… 
“We’ll insure you against falling meteorites, but not for damage from collapsing buildings, scaffolding, items thrown out of windows, etc.”