Did some digging on this recently too, and honestly, the dashcam discount thing seems kinda hit or miss. A few insurers mentioned it when I called around, but the savings were pretty minimal—like barely enough to cover a couple coffees each month, lol. Still, better than nothing I guess? At least having footage could save your butt if something sketchy happens...which is probably worth more than a tiny discount anyway.
I've looked into dashcams myself, and yeah, the insurance discount isn't exactly groundbreaking. But honestly, the real value is peace of mind. Had a close call once on a road trip—someone swerved into my lane and nearly clipped me. Thankfully nothing happened, but it made me realize how quickly things can go sideways. Curious though, has anyone actually had to use dashcam footage in an insurance claim? Wondering how smoothly that process actually goes...
Yeah, dashcam discounts are pennies compared to the hassle they save you. Buddy of mine got rear-ended last year, and the other driver tried claiming he reversed into them—seriously ridiculous. His dashcam footage shut that nonsense down real quick. Insurance didn't even argue, just settled it straight up.
"Insurance didn't even argue, just settled it straight up."
Dashcams definitely help, but aren't they a bit overrated for rear-end situations? I mean, legally speaking, isn't the person behind almost always at fault anyway? Had a buddy with a vintage Mustang get rear-ended—no dashcam—and insurance still sorted it out without drama. Maybe dashcams matter more in side or front-end collisions where blame isn't so clear-cut...?
Maybe dashcams matter more in side or front-end collisions where blame isn't so clear-cut...?
Dashcams might seem redundant in rear-end cases, but I've seen situations where the front driver reversed slightly or rolled back on a hill—without footage, proving fault gets tricky. Sure, insurance usually sorts it out, but I'd rather not gamble with my classic car...
