The Shoulder
The Shoulder
71
Car accidentsbright-kestrel-514

Rear-ended on the interstate and my dashcam footage was basically worthless — learned my lesson

So this happened a few months back and I'm still a little salty about how it played out.

I was cruising on the interstate, totally normal conditions, when someone slammed into the back of my car. The impact was hard enough to send me into the guardrail. Not a fun afternoon.

Here's the thing — I had a dashcam. Felt pretty smug about it, honestly. But it was front-facing only. When the other driver's insurance got involved, she told them I had cut her off and slammed my brakes for no reason. Complete fabrication. My front footage showed I was traveling at a consistent speed, no erratic movement, no lane changes. But it showed absolutely nothing about what was happening behind me — how close she was sitting on my bumper, whether she even touched her brakes before impact, any of it.

Her insurer basically shrugged and said it was a he-said-she-said situation. I ended up eating my deductible and my rates crept up at renewal. Infuriating.

My brother-in-law (who drives a company vehicle and has seen this play out before) told me a dual-channel setup with a rear-facing lens would have captured everything I needed — her following distance, her speed before impact, whether brake lights came on. All of it admissible and clear.

I've since upgraded to a front-and-rear setup. Haven't had to use the footage thankfully, but I feel way less exposed now.

Anyone here actually had rear dashcam footage make a difference in how their claim was handled? Curious if it's actually changed outcomes for people or if insurers still find ways to dismiss it.

13replies

Not sure what your claim is worth?

AskMatlock can connect you with an independent injury lawyer for a free case check — no pressure, no cost to start.

Check my case

0 / 4000 · posted under a randomly assigned handle

13 replies

  • 20
    clear-fox-571

    From what I've seen working on these files, rear footage is particularly valuable because it captures things that are almost impossible to reconstruct otherwise — following distance, reaction time, brake activation. Accident reconstruction experts can sometimes piece things together from physical evidence, but that's expensive and not always available in a standard claim. A $150 camera can do a lot of that work automatically. Worth every penny if you're in a dispute.

    • 15
      gentle-wolf-826

      I know this thread is mostly about the camera stuff, but I just want to ask — are you doing okay physically? Rear-end impacts can do a number on your neck and back in ways that don't show up right away. I've seen people shrug off an accident and then have real issues weeks later. Hope you got checked out regardless of how the insurance stuff played out.

  • 19
    curious-wren-613

    Not legal advice, but I'll say this — in a rear-end case where liability is disputed, contemporaneous video evidence is about as strong as it gets. Witness memories fade and stories shift, but footage is footage. If you ever find yourself in another situation like this, preserve that video immediately, don't let it get overwritten, and talk to someone about your options before you accept any settlement. A lot of people just pay the deductible and move on without realizing they may have had a real claim.

  • 14
    humble-bison-733

    Insurers LOVE a he-said-she-said situation — it gives them cover to lowball or deny entirely. Even with solid footage they'll sometimes quibble over camera angle or lighting. But having nothing behind you is basically handing them an excuse on a silver platter. A rear cam closes that loophole fast. Don't let them play that game with you again.

  • 13
    mellow-finch-837

    Front-only cameras are honestly a false sense of security for anything except proving you didn't run a red light. For rear-end collisions, which are one of the most common accident types, you need rear coverage. Full stop. Get the dual setup, make sure it loops properly, done.

    • 3
      careful-driver128

      Same boat here. Did anyone mention a deadline to watch out for?

  • 10
    calm-marten-357

    I'll be real with you — when I was on the other side of the desk, clear rear footage basically ended the argument before it started. If a claimant came in with video showing tight following distance and no brake lights before impact, we knew exactly where liability was going to land. Without it, yeah, adjusters are absolutely going to explore every angle that reduces their payout. It's not personal, it's just how the process works. Video evidence changes the math completely.

    • 4
      hopeful-neighbor522

      Did you have to escalate, or did they come around after the first ask?

  • 6
    quick-marmot-034

    Ugh, this is almost exactly what happened to me two years ago. Front cam only, rear-ender, other driver lied through her teeth. I felt so helpless watching the adjuster just... believe her. Upgraded to a dual setup immediately after. Hopefully neither of us ever needs it again but at least now we're covered from both ends.

    • 2
      tired-walker234

      Appreciate the detailed write-up. Saving this for later.

  • 5
    steady-swift-167

    Genuine question — did you have anyone look at whether the front footage alone was actually enough to push back on the other driver's story? Like sometimes an attorney reviewing the file catches things adjusters gloss over. I'm not saying your setup wasn't a factor, just wondering if the footage issue was the whole problem or if how the claim was handled also played a role.

    • 7
      quiet-optimist374

      Seconding this. The same approach worked for me last year.

  • 5
    kind-mole-659

    At least you figured it out before it happened again! A lot of people just stay frustrated and never upgrade. The fact that you took action means the next time someone tries to pin something on you, you've got receipts. That peace of mind is genuinely worth something.