Abstract
With the progression of audio-visual recording technology and the public’s increasing competence in interpreting video content, on-board video recordings, such as dashcam footage, are progressively employed in judicial proceedings concerning liability for casualties and torts in road traffic incidents. The principal purpose of such evidence is to ascertain spatiotemporal parameters—comprising speed, acceleration, and distance—and to supply physical data pertaining to collision configurations, angles, points of impact, and pre- and post-collision trajectories. Technically, these devices capture a three-dimensional (3D) environment and convert it into two-dimensional (2D) electronic data through optical lenses, inevitably resulting in some data distortion or loss. While this characteristic is similar to fixed surveillance systems, on-board video recorders present unique challenges, such as variable mounting heights and angles, lens degradation due to high temperatures, image instability from road surface irregularities, device displacement or detachment, and the complexities of recording while in motion. Consequently, forensic analysts must exercise extreme caution when interpreting these recordings to avoid misjudgment. Previous research indicates that on-board video footage cannot be equated to the driver’s visual perception due to differences in camera placement and a narrower field of view (FOV) compared to the human eye. Furthermore, studies suggest that auditory cues or graphic content in the footage may psychologically impact observers, leading them to overlook critical visual details. This study analyzes four judicial cases to explore issues related to the admissibility and interpretation of video evidence. In addition to corroborating existing literature, this study identifies potential pitfalls in determining collision angles and points of impact solely from video footage and proposes correction methodologies. The findings aim to provide a reference for researchers in road traffic accident reconstruction.
Key words: On-board video recordings, Expert testimony, Interference factors, Road traffic accident