Video evidence definitely seems like it'd trump memory, but insurance companies don't always see it that straightforwardly. From what I've experienced, here's how it usually goes: First, they gather all available evidence—videos, photos, witness statements. Then, they cross-reference everything to check for consistency. Even shaky witness memories get considered because insurers prefer multiple perspectives. Finally, they weigh all this info before deciding payouts. Seems tedious, but I guess they're just being thorough to avoid costly mistakes...
"Even shaky witness memories get considered because insurers prefer multiple perspectives."
Yeah, that's been my experience too. Had a minor fender-bender last year—thought my dashcam footage would make it an open-and-shut case. But the insurance company still called around, interviewed witnesses, and double-checked everything. Felt excessive at first, but I get it now... they're just covering their bases. Guess video isn't always the silver bullet you'd expect.
Yeah, dashcam footage isn't always the slam dunk you'd think. Had a similar thing happen a couple years back—someone rear-ended me at a stoplight. I figured my video would clear things up instantly, but nope... insurance still wanted witness statements and even asked me to sketch out the scene. Felt kinda weird at first, like they didn't trust the footage or something.
But thinking about it now, I guess they're just being thorough. Memories can be fuzzy, sure, but sometimes witnesses catch details the camera misses—like what happened right before or after the clip. Makes me wonder though, how much weight do insurers actually give to shaky witness accounts compared to clear video evidence? Seems like a tricky balance between covering their bases and muddying the waters.
Yeah, I've had similar thoughts about this. Dashcams are great, but they're definitely not foolproof. A buddy of mine got sideswiped on a road trip last summer, and his dashcam caught the whole thing pretty clearly—license plate, lane positions, everything. But even then, insurance still wanted to talk to witnesses and double-check details. At first, we were both kinda annoyed, like... isn't the footage enough proof already?
But after thinking it through, I get why they do it. Video is helpful, sure, but sometimes it doesn't show the full context—like what happened just before the collision or what the other driver was doing off-camera. Witnesses can fill in those gaps, even if their memories aren't perfect.
As far as how much weight insurers give witness statements versus video evidence, I'd say video usually takes priority, especially if it's clear and shows the actual moment of impact. But insurers probably still cross-reference witness accounts to make sure everything lines up. They're cautious by nature (probably why their paperwork is always endless, lol), so they'll gather as much info as possible before making a call.
I think the tricky part comes when witness statements conflict with video evidence. Like if someone says they saw something different from what's clearly shown on camera. In those cases, I'd bet insurers lean heavily toward trusting the footage—it's objective proof, after all—but they still have to document everything thoroughly in case there's a dispute down the line.
Overall, dashcams are definitely worth having (mine's saved me from a few close calls already), but it's good to remember they're just one piece of the puzzle. Insurance companies will always want extra verification—annoying at times, yeah, but probably better safe than sorry.
"I think the tricky part comes when witness statements conflict with video evidence."
That's a good point. A few years back, I had a minor fender-bender in my '72 Mustang, and even though the dashcam footage was clear, the other driver insisted something else happened. Insurance ended up siding with the video, but it took weeks to sort out. Makes me wonder—does anyone know if having PIP coverage speeds things up, or is it just another layer of paperwork?
