4 ms·
Because that’s a stupid system. I will never accept being under camera surveillance constantly by the car, no matter what stupid name people come up for it (“at
by zionic 4y ago
Because that’s a stupid system. I will never accept being under camera surveillance constantly by the car, no matter what stupid name people come up for it (“attention monitoring”)
- alluro2 4y agoPlaying the devil's advocate if I may - why would you oppose e.g. an internal, offline system that monitors your eyes for being closed and can save your spouse and kids from dying in a car crash if you doze off during a long night drive, by alerting you / safely stopping the vehicle? I saw a similar reaction to Volvo's announced plans for such tech (it was a YouTube video) - it seemed to be a completely offline system, but people still read "camera" and reacted that they don't want "someone watching them" in the car.
- lstodd 4y agoBecause you can never be sure it's 'completely offline' or that it actually can help. If you don't want to kill a couple dozen of people by driving into a fuel truck, just don't drive while about to pass out. It's that simple, but no electronics can ever replace responsibility.
- ollifi 4y agoAlso if you don’t want to kill people don’t have a seizure or a brain infarct or a stroke or such while driving.
- HWR_14 4y agoI have no real issue with a system that has no memory or logging of events and only exists to help me, not to cause liability to fall on me because the system, possibly erroneously, logged I took my eyes off the road for a split second 30 seconds before an incident. Or insurers using false positives as a reason to raise rates. And saving the video is right out. But there's no such system, nor is there any trivial way of demonstrating that such a system works that way. Because all car companies and insurance companies want data.