3 ms·

We have cockpit cameras in many vehicles - planes, some trains, other vehicles. If we are going to have 4 cameras doing outward data collection, it makes sense

We have cockpit cameras in many vehicles - planes, some trains, other vehicles. If we are going to have 4 cameras doing outward data collection, it makes sense we'd have them facing inward also. The question to me isn't the presence of a camera or not for accident reconstruction, but if it is being actively used when not involved in an accident in a big brother sense, and if user data if being unfairly monetized, and if this permitted a user to disable it in most cases (except accidents), or if the driven is operating in a professional capacity and must have the camera enabled for personal safety reasons. On the other hand I have a number of kids, and we have a plan for our au pair to drive the children. For this, it would be useful if we had in vehicle monitoring and tracking of speed, etc. We don't want an infant being driven to an appointment like the au pair is on the Indy 500.

toast0 3y ago
Those cockpit cameras are in the context of employment and also the context where all incidents are investigated with at least a stated goal of improving safety. Personal vehicle accidents are rarely investigated, and when they are, it's almost always with a goal of assigning responsibility. Why would I pay for something that is going to record me and most of the time be useful most for assigning responsibility to me? If there was a culture that most/all traffic collisions would be investigated and remediations would be taken, then sure. But it's very rare to have an thorough investigation, and it's even rarer for remidiations to be taken. Many locales have 'known dangerous' intersections where there's no consideration of design change. There's no mechanism to provide ongoing training to drivers (in the US).