The stopping is just someone hitting the 'save' button.
That ensures the evidence (I would love to see how much the insurance industry save from having access to this, which would probably wipe out the few negatives when talking about dashcams) is preserved and not overwritten.
I only use a cheap front and rear cam due to very low mileage covered and these record 30 minutes at a time until the card is full, which for me is a few hours.
Many also auto-save/protect when they detect a crash/sudden stop.
Personally, I don't like the idea of driving around recording other people going about their lives. Various authorities do this for a multitude of reasons, but I can't justify the need for me to do it. Being rear-ended is for the most part, fairly cut and dried in most insurance claims, which rules out the need for rear facing ones. I honestly think that if I am involved in so many front-on crashes or near-misses that I need a camera recording all of the time just in case, then I need to look closer to home. Recording idiotic drivers in order to tell everyone how I never make mistakes on the road and am a model driver is also not a pastime that I'm in any real rush to indulge in either. That's my view.
Cheaper insurance would tempt me.
Mine is there for the simple fact that I hate bullsh*tting liars and the camera never.....
I submitted photo evidence in the late 1990's against someone that hit my stationary GTI and then claimed it was not his fault, and to a point I was screwed, until I submitted and won over a bullsh*tter, and I guess the idea of protection has stayed with me ever since.
True, but it does debunk one theory. BMWs do have indicators.
Typical BMW driver, she ignored the 'No Entry' sign and parked on the double yellow lines 
After our nasty 'Final Destination' prang on the A1 during rush hour we had no independent witnesses, despite dozens of people driving past, I wouldn't be without one.
BTW did I say the bellend HGV driver tried to deny liability?
I think that forward and rear facing cameras are a great idea. Footage now stands-up in court, from what I understand, from front facing cameras. OK, there’s a bit of ‘big brother’ about it, but if footage could, for example, prove my innocence in a car accident, then I’m all for them. Given that we’ll be having speed limiters fitted to all cars from 2022 (good old EU) I think that dash cameras will be the norm at some point soon.
Clem
I have both front and rear camera, the rear one was used in an accident 4 years ago when I was rear ended by a lorry that failed to stop the film of the incident the Police used to find the driver, not sure what happened to him and last Wednesday I had an incident on the A303 where I had to preform an emergency brake and swerve into an opening. Thursday morning I sent a clip of the incident to the Police with a minute each side of the incident, within a couple of hours I'd had an email back saying they were going to prosecute the driver just on my video. So yes, they're worth their weight in gold as far as I'm concerned.
Unless you’re in Germany when the incident happens.
Stuffed? I'm thinking all the money you've saved in premiums by gambling with such a high excess and not protecting your no claims for all these years should cover it? Take some responsibility for your decision.