• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would mandatory dashcams on all new vehicles sold in the US be a good idea?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IGBT said:
the dashCams I find on the market are cheap junk. They all report some kind of intermittent problem due to poor thermal characteristics.
Click to expand...

My Galaxy S4 with Daily Roads works perfect, and has better video quality than many of those cameras. I could record in 1080p but that was a bit much, so I dropped it to 720p. I have a microSD card for the video.
 
IGBT said:
the dashCams I find on the market are cheap junk. They all report some kind of intermittent problem due to poor thermal characteristics.
Click to expand...

You mean it gets too hot? There are some dashcams that use a capacitor instead of a battery to cut down on the heat.
 
To do it properly, the government would need to install three cameras (front, rear, and interior), breathalyzer, and a transmitter. Place receivers on bridges, on ramps, and tunnels (for tolls), overpasses (for speeding tickets), road signs (to manage compliance with local traffic regulations), and anywhere else deemed necessary and proper to monitor the safety, security, and movement of the national population. Tickets automatically issued for violation would include pictures of the driver, passengers, and vicinity, along with the relevant GPS data. Cellphone usage would be monitored, as well, in order that the appropriate fines may be allocated for distracted driving. Internal sensors for smoke, food, and sugary drinks will be added, of course, once regulations detailing their lawful usage have been put in place on a national level.

Being freed of traffic duty, local police may then be integrated into federal 'Action Forces', which will be able to prosecute more serious crimes against society - such as murder, rape, and failure to pick up after your dog.
 
OCGuy said:
For someone over 18 being forced by the government to wear them or face a fine? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

So you'll be absolutely fine if nobody come by to scrape your carcass off the pavement or peel you off the trunk of a tree after you get in an accident, regardless of whose fault it is, right?
 
SunnyD said:
So you'll be absolutely fine if nobody come by to scrape your carcass off the pavement or peel you off the trunk of a tree after you get in an accident, regardless of whose fault it is, right?
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything?
 
SunnyD said:
I'm just thinking of ways to lower MY insurance and health care costs. Because it's the popular thing to do.
Click to expand...

Petition your insurance company for a monitoring device that gives you lower rates based on operating parameters. They already have them. Maybe they take seatbelt use into account. Dunno. I'd never allow a monitoring device in my vehicle.
 
OCGuy said:
For someone over 18 being forced by the government to wear them or face a fine? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

I'm for it. The $40 they charge here and there for a seatbelt ticket doesn't cover the $40,000 it costs to scrape you off the side of the road when you get creamed.
 
laxie16 said:
Mandatory? No. If there was an incentive offered, I may listen.
Click to expand...

The incentive is that you don't have to worry about hit and runs as much, you'll be able to present the video in defence, if someone claims you were speeding/causing an accident and that will also help with the insurance company to not use some get-out-of-jail-free clause.

Plenty of incentive.
 
What I would like to see are mandatory chestcams on cops.



We can afford a $60k vehicle, $10k in armaments and gear, but a mandatory $300 chestcam is just too expensive. 🙄
 
_Rick_ said:
The incentive is that you don't have to worry about hit and runs as much, you'll be able to present the video in defence, if someone claims you were speeding/causing an accident and that will also help with the insurance company to not use some get-out-of-jail-free clause.

Plenty of incentive.
Click to expand...

Just think about it, the only people that will oppose the general trend of dashcams are the those who jolly well know they themselves aren't good at this driving thing.
 
StrangerGuy said:
Just think about it, the only people that will oppose the general trend of dashcams are the those who jolly well know they themselves aren't good at this driving thing.
Click to expand...

The "Nothing to hide argument" eh? The coward's way out of thought for over 100 years.
 
Hey, let's have counter cams in all kitchens, since more accidents happen in the home, and the kitchen, than anywhere else. This way investigators and insurance companies can see if it was an accident or an "accident", whether their was a domestic dispute involved and who was truly at fault. Plus, when your neighbor is over, gets hurt in your house and files suit against you and your homeowners insurance, you have video evidence of him purposely slipping and falling on that "wet" spot on the kitchen floor.
 
StrangerGuy said:
You might have a point if someone else car was your property.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying. Tracking devices are bad. Anyone who thinks these technologies will only benefit the user is foolish. Best case scenario is they get used as revenue generation devices, where you get a monthly bill for every trivial traffic law you broke over the previous 30 days. Worst case is they get used to frame you for something you didn't do, or get hacked by a malicious third party.
 
lxskllr said:
I don't understand what you're saying. Tracking devices are bad. Anyone who thinks these technologies will only benefit the user is foolish. Best case scenario is they get used as revenue generation devices, where you get a monthly bill for every trivial traffic law you broke over the previous 30 days. Worst case is they get used to frame you for something you didn't do, or get hacked by a malicious third party.
Click to expand...

I never said or implied anything related to the government regarding dashcams. Who do you think you are to judge me regarding the benefits and liabilities installing cams on my own car eh, freedom lover?
 
2timer said:
So there's alot of concern that the dashcam would be just another sphere of technology for the NSA to invade and snoop around in. Which is a reasonable concern, I suppose.
Click to expand...

OK, what are the odds that the NSA would, as soon as this became law, begin to tap into this? I'd say 100% -- at least! D:

Having your own dashcam is a great idea but having this mandated will only benefit the insurance companies and the growing list of companies looking to data mine for profit -- and the NSA of course...


Brian
 
StrangerGuy said:
I never said or implied anything related to the government regarding dashcams. Who do you think you are to judge me regarding the benefits and liabilities installing cams on my own car eh, freedom lover?
Click to expand...

I think you need to read the OP again. It said mandated camera installations. The government is the only organization that can mandate anything. I don't give a shit what you put in your car. Put in a prostate massager for all I care. I'm not interested.

Edit:
screwed up a word
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top