On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html


It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of dashcam
that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that happens before
the main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).

The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike
were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is
hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the
"obstruction" could exist.

What is "footage"?

It is the term used of video or film sequences. It is a carry-over into
the video world from the days when all moving pictures had to be
captured on chemical film (measured by the foot).

Fancy your pretending not to know that.

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?

Are you talking about the results of:

(a) a traffic accident, or

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit of
raging pique?