SINGAPORE — Despite the limitations that in-car camera recordings have in settling accident disputes, drivers are still snapping up such devices following a series of high-profile cases.

A check with six retailers showed that sales of in-car cameras rose by as much as 50 per cent following the fatal Ferrari crash at Rochor Road last May that was caught on tape.

It spiked again after a YouTube video of two cars driving dangerously at high speed in the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) tunnel — which led the Police to urge motorists to submit video footage of traffic violations on Tuesday — went viral online recently.

Said Chuan Sing Auto Accessories Centre’s Ms Chan Poh Khaw: “After the Ferrari accident last year, our sales have gone up even though we only carry one brand of in-car cameras.”

Her shop sold more than 10 sets of such devices in the week after the KPE video, compared to the one or two sets they normally sell.

ZMC’s Marketing and Business Development Director Lexus Teo added that it sold over 1,000 of these sets during an IT show after the Ferrari incident — its sales rose more than 50 per cent on average following that case.

However, lawyers pointed out that such footage may not be helpful or be admitted as evidence in court all the time.

Said Mr Abraham Vergis: “You only have a view from one direction. It also doesn’t give us any insight as to what the driver’s condition is — whether he was inebriated or distracted — and it depends on how well the video captured the incident in question.

“So it’s not the answer to all, but it’s clearly one additional piece of useful evidence.”

There are legal and circumstantial factors at play too, criminal lawyer Chia Boon Teck added.

“For example, video recordings cannot determine speed and depending on the clarity of the footage, the court will have to decide how accurate the video depicts the actual scenario — whether or not there are any distortion as regards to the distance and the movement and so on,” he said.

“The court will have to decide how much weight to put on the video recording as a reliable form of evidence.”

Nonetheless, such footage can help, for instance, in preventing some cases from escalating into drawn-out disputes, said insurance companies and lawyers.

Citing the example of a motorist who was rear-ended because he slammed on his brakes intentionally, Mr Chia said: “Without video footage, I will fight you all the way, but the moment you show me the video, I will chicken out because the video destroys my story.”

NTUC Income’s Vice-President for Motor Insurance Peh Chee Keong agreed that such video footage are “useful in supporting their claims and in reducing discrepancies on statements between parties involved in an accident”.

“At NTUC Income, we do ask policyholders if they have such evidence,” he said.

Although such evidence are still not filed in many insurance claims currently, insurers said there has been an increase.

Aviva estimated that about one in 50 car insurance claims it currently receives is accompanied by video evidence, although this figure was twice of that two years ago, said its Singapore Head of General Insurance Pan Jing Long.