4 ms·

I find it just as crazy that many or most personal cars come equipped with cameras and sensors all over, but are not required to record any of it for analysis o

I find it just as crazy that many or most personal cars come equipped with cameras and sensors all over, but are not required to record any of it for analysis of a collision and attribution of fault. The most unqualified person can be driving a 10,000 pound (4,500kg) electric Hummer and have no measures in place to use the built in cameras and sensors to determine what went wrong in the event of a collision. Hell, there are cameras inside the vehicle that can tell us whether or not a driver was using their phone when a crash happens, but it does not seem politically popular to enforce reviewing this footage, even though being in a personal car is far more dangerous than being a passenger on a plane.

SR2Z 2y ago
This is not strictly true and most cars have black box modules which record control inputs and IMU data.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I have never heard of this used to determine who is at fault in a collision. Does that happen? Also, video would be a tremendous help for ascribing proper blame, so why wouldn’t that be required? When airbags came out, video recording was expensive, but that has long not been the case.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    It does happen! These devices are generally only installed post-2005ish cars and the data is used more for safety investigations (did this car have a hardware fault) than insurance, simply because it takes a decent amount of skill to construct a narrative off those devices. Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      >Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room. …that is my point. For the most dangerous activity people in the country do, we avoid laws that would help ascribe blame because everyone wants to be able to break the rules. A pilot gets recorded, regardless of their privacy, because they are responsible for other people’s lives. Why not drivers? They certainly cause damage to other people. And at a rate far higher than a person doing ANY other activity. It’s not about privacy, it is about wanting to avoid accountability.
GoToRO 2y ago
The airbag module does record acceleration, seat belt status and the general scenario used to deploy the airbags/tighten the seat belts.
kjellsbells 2y ago
The car situation is at the unholy nexus of bad behavior, money, and privacy. My insurance company would dearly love to have access to the existing telemetry in my vehicle. As an alternative, they continually beg me to install a telemetry device in the OBD port in exchange for lower premiums. But their incentive is so obviously to use the data against me in the event of a claim ("ohho! 31 in a 30 zone! Denied!") that I see no reason to do so. Dashcams, by contrast, provide the operator with reasonable evidence of other drivers' behavior, and consequently are popular - people pay out of pocket to install them. I suspect that if laws were passed requiring use of telemetry and dashcams all over, all that would really happen is that rates would rise to reflect new data on how badly most of us drive, and claim denials would skyrocket.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  be certain it does at the moment of claim denial. parallel construction for the win
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > As an alternative, they continually beg me to install a telemetry device in the OBD port in exchange for lower premiums. But their incentive is so obviously to use the data against me in the event of a claim ("ohho! 31 in a 30 zone! Denied!") that I see no reason to do so. So your incentive is to pay less money, and their incentive is to pay less money. They figured out a way to do that and still be in business. Obviously, some people might value driving over the speed limit more than the lower premium. > I suspect that if laws were passed requiring use of telemetry and dashcams all over, all that would really happen is that rates would rise to reflect new data on how badly most of us drive, and claim denials would skyrocket. You don’t think people would change their behavior if their actions were likelier to result in consequences to their bank account and/or prison time? Almost everyone is distracted driving to the point that personal motor vehicles are, by far, the leading morbidity and mortality risk for people, especially children. We go scorched earth when kids are kidnapped or otherwise at risk, but for personal cars, we explicitly look the other way when we have a way to make kids safer. Quite the double standard people have when they want to break the rules themselves.
- 2y ago

SR2Z 2y ago

This is not strictly true and most cars have black box modules which record control inputs and IMU data.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
I have never heard of this used to determine who is at fault in a collision. Does that happen? Also, video would be a tremendous help for ascribing proper blame, so why wouldn’t that be required? When airbags came out, video recording was expensive, but that has long not been the case.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  It does happen! These devices are generally only installed post-2005ish cars and the data is used more for safety investigations (did this car have a hardware fault) than insurance, simply because it takes a decent amount of skill to construct a narrative off those devices. Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room. …that is my point. For the most dangerous activity people in the country do, we avoid laws that would help ascribe blame because everyone wants to be able to break the rules. A pilot gets recorded, regardless of their privacy, because they are responsible for other people’s lives. Why not drivers? They certainly cause damage to other people. And at a rate far higher than a person doing ANY other activity. It’s not about privacy, it is about wanting to avoid accountability.

GoToRO 2y ago

The airbag module does record acceleration, seat belt status and the general scenario used to deploy the airbags/tighten the seat belts.

kjellsbells 2y ago

The car situation is at the unholy nexus of bad behavior, money, and privacy. My insurance company would dearly love to have access to the existing telemetry in my vehicle. As an alternative, they continually beg me to install a telemetry device in the OBD port in exchange for lower premiums. But their incentive is so obviously to use the data against me in the event of a claim ("ohho! 31 in a 30 zone! Denied!") that I see no reason to do so. Dashcams, by contrast, provide the operator with reasonable evidence of other drivers' behavior, and consequently are popular - people pay out of pocket to install them. I suspect that if laws were passed requiring use of telemetry and dashcams all over, all that would really happen is that rates would rise to reflect new data on how badly most of us drive, and claim denials would skyrocket.

ashoeafoot 2y ago
be certain it does at the moment of claim denial. parallel construction for the win
lotsofpulp 2y ago
> As an alternative, they continually beg me to install a telemetry device in the OBD port in exchange for lower premiums. But their incentive is so obviously to use the data against me in the event of a claim ("ohho! 31 in a 30 zone! Denied!") that I see no reason to do so. So your incentive is to pay less money, and their incentive is to pay less money. They figured out a way to do that and still be in business. Obviously, some people might value driving over the speed limit more than the lower premium. > I suspect that if laws were passed requiring use of telemetry and dashcams all over, all that would really happen is that rates would rise to reflect new data on how badly most of us drive, and claim denials would skyrocket. You don’t think people would change their behavior if their actions were likelier to result in consequences to their bank account and/or prison time? Almost everyone is distracted driving to the point that personal motor vehicles are, by far, the leading morbidity and mortality risk for people, especially children. We go scorched earth when kids are kidnapped or otherwise at risk, but for personal cars, we explicitly look the other way when we have a way to make kids safer. Quite the double standard people have when they want to break the rules themselves.
2y ago