Glad you mentioned the deer story, that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me consider getting a dashcam. I'm still pretty new to the whole insurance thing (just bought my first car), so I've been researching whether dashcams really make that much of a difference when dealing with claims.
"Having both angles covered means fewer loopholes for someone to twist the story around."
Makes sense, but honestly, I'm still a bit skeptical if dual cams are worth the extra hassle and cost. Here's what I'm thinking right now:
- Front-only cams seem good enough for most situations, especially since most accidents happen in front of you. Plus, they're simpler to install (big plus for me, since DIY isn't exactly my strong suit).
- Rear cams sound helpful, but how often do rear-end collisions end up disputed? Isn't it usually pretty clear-cut who's at fault there? Maybe I'm being naive though...
- Also, how reliable are these dashcams anyway? I've heard some horror stories about cheap ones failing right when you need them most. Don't wanna spend money on something that'll crap out at the worst possible time.
Still, your deer incident gives me pause... I drive through some pretty rural areas sometimes, and wildlife popping out of nowhere is a legit concern. Plus, people do some pretty wild stuff on the roads these days (seriously, some drivers make me question humanity).
Guess I'll keep an open mind and do a bit more digging before I commit. If anyone has recommendations for reliable brands or models that aren't crazy expensive, I'm all ears.
I totally get your hesitation about dual cams—honestly, I was in the same boat. When I first got mine, I figured front-only would be fine since most of the action happens up front anyway. But then one day, some genius decided to back into me at a stoplight (yeah, seriously), and tried to claim I rear-ended him. Luckily, there were witnesses, but it made me rethink the whole rear cam thing.
"Rear cams sound helpful, but how often do rear-end collisions end up disputed? Isn't it usually pretty clear-cut who's at fault there?"
You'd think it'd be clear-cut, but people can get really creative when trying to dodge blame. Having that rear footage would've saved me a ton of headache. That said, if you're mainly worried about deer and random wildlife encounters, front-only might still be enough. As for reliability, stick with decent brands—Viofo and Garmin are solid choices without breaking the bank.
Either way, it's smart you're thinking ahead like this...better safe than sorry when dealing with insurance companies (and questionable drivers).
Yeah, you'd be surprised how often people try to spin things around when there's a collision. I used to think rear cams were just an extra expense, but after hearing a few horror stories from friends (and now yours), I'm reconsidering. Still, budget-wise, front-only cams cover most scenarios—especially wildlife or random road debris. If money's tight, maybe just get a decent front cam now and add the rear one later if you feel it's necessary?
I used to think front-only was enough too, until someone backed into me at a drive-thru and claimed I rear-ended them. Imagine explaining to insurance that your burger run turned into a bumper battle... Rear cam paid for itself right there.
Front-only cams are definitely better than nothing, but your story perfectly highlights why having both is a smart move. I've handled plenty of claims where the driver who actually caused the accident tried to flip the blame—especially in tight spaces like parking lots or drive-thrus. Dashcam footage can save you from a lot of headaches and back-and-forth with insurance companies. Honestly, it's one of those things you don't fully appreciate until you really need it... Glad yours worked out!
