I don’t think you should bag on the rules of evidence so easily. They’re not perfect, but they’re not illogical.
Rule 801 defines “statement” as “a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.” Video, photography and writing are just the means of communication, and do not inherently constitute “hearsay.” If that were the case then most evidence would not come in. If video were inherently hearsay, then so would a writing. It is not the fact something is written, but what the words say, that make it hearsay or not.
Exceptions under Rule 803 have to do with the circumstances, and not the medium of recording: excited utterances, records of a regularly conducted activity, etc.
Here, the driving would be “nonverbal conduct,” but probably not a “statement.” For purposes of the hearsay rule, it makes no difference whether the conduct was recorded on video or a witness says “that guy was driving like a maniac.” The witness can be cross examined on their location, the lighting, their glasses (see My Cousin Vinnie). The video is not "cross-examined, " but it can be challenged for lack of foundation, or authenticity under Rule 901. Those are relatively low bars, which is why video evidence is regularly admitted and is very powerful evidence in court. Juries naturally believe a video of an event over a witness’ testimonial description of the event.
