Dash Cams & GPS as standard

goz83

It boggles the mind as to why front and rear (at a minimum) dash cams and gps trackers are not installed into new vehicles from factory.

The way I see it, if your spending thousands of euros on a vehicle, it should come with these as standard. Dash cams should be installed in front and rear of the car for obvious reasons. Cams at the sides would be beneficial too, but would maybe be an "extra".

GPS tracking should definitely be standard, but the owner should be the only person who can login to see the status. Any thoughts, or other suggestios as standard equipment on something you pay so much for?

coylemj

Saying that something 'should be' installed as standard is to assume that everyone wants that kit and, more importantly, is prepared to pay for it.

You want it, you pay for it.

As far as manufacturers are concerned, putting a new feature into a car simply raises the price and puts them at a competitive disadvantage. In the case of Volvo, they sell on their reputation for safety so for example they introduced the third brake light and were able to tout it's advantage in avoiding being rear-ended, your dashcam might be useful in helping you in a situation where the other guy is in the wrong but it doesn't prevent an accident from happening in the first place, hence it can't be sold as a safety feature and is unlikely to become a standard feature in the short term.

bazz26

Why? I certainly don't want them.

colm_mcm

coylemj wrote: »

for example they (Volvo) introduced the third brake light and were able to tout it's advantage in avoiding being rear-ended,

They didn't though, it was first trialled in the 70s by a psychologist in America and passed into law in 1986. It only came in here in the late 90s. Don't think Volvo had any part in it.

coylemj

colm_mcm wrote: »

They didn't though, it was first trialled in the 70s by a psychologist in America and passed into law in 1986. It only came in here in the late 90s. Don't think Volvo had any part in it.

As far as I recall, Volvo was the first mainstream manufacturer to fit it as standard. Elizabeth Dole (wife of Bob Dole) was Reagan's Secretary of Transportation and she thought it was such a good idea that she made it mandatory in 1986, much against hard lobbying by Detroit.

I think you mean 'it only became mandatory here' in the late 90s, it was fitted voluntarily by several manufacturers before that. For example it was standard on the original Fiat Bravo which was launched in 1995.

Here it is on an 88/89 UK Volvo....

http://www.volvogallery.org.uk/showphoto.php?photo=11551&title=my-volvo-240glt-with-41k-miles&cat=3190

goz83

coylemj wrote: »

Saying that something 'should be' installed as standard is to assume that everyone wants that kit and, more importantly, is prepared to pay for it.

You want it, you pay for it.

As far as manufacturers are concerned, putting a new feature into a car simply raises the price and puts them at a competitive disadvantage. In the case of Volvo, they sell on their reputation for safety so for example they introduced the third brake light and were able to tout it's advantage in avoiding being rear-ended, your dashcam might be useful in helping you in a situation where the other guy is in the wrong but it doesn't prevent an accident from happening in the first place, hence it can't be sold as a safety feature and is unlikely to become a standard feature in the short term.

With that attitude, it sounds like you would do without headlights if you got away with paying for them. I totally disagree that a dashcam installed in every vehicle would not prevent accidents. Notice how everyone slows down and drives more carefully when the Gardai are around, or if there is a speed trap, or traffic cam? If the majority of cars were fitted with dashcams, it would encourage safer driving, so would therefore prevent accidents. It might also cut down on insurance in the long term (maybe), because the blame would be more easily assigned to who was at fault.

My point is that these devices are very cheap and could be installed at a tiny cost. It would add maybe €100 to the cost of a new car, which costs thousands of euros, unless top of the range stuff is used.

coylemj

goz83 wrote: »

If the majority of cars were fitted with dashcams, it would encourage safer driving, so would therefore prevent accidents.

How does having a camera in your car make you a safer driver? You can always scrub the memory if it doesn't suit you.

The only way a device will make you a safer driver is if the data can be uploaded and studied by your insurance company or the Gardai, without you having the option to turn it off or delete the memory.

goz83 wrote: »

It might also cut down on insurance in the long term (maybe), because the blame would be more easily assigned to who was at fault.

The insurance payout would be the same, the camera would simply ensure that the motorist in the right wouldn't lose his NCB as a result of the other guy telling lies. So it would make no difference to insurance overall.

CreepingDeath

goz83 wrote: »

If the majority of cars were fitted with dashcams, it would encourage safer driving, so would therefore prevent accidents.

Only if each driver was prepared to go to court when they witness/record an incident of bad/dangerous driving. Otherwise, you'll just fill up YouTube with traffic incidents.

If the Traffic corp had a department to accept and analyse video footage of bad driving and make the process easy, you'd get somewhere.
But in reality, you have to go to a garda station and make a formal statement.

Although I remember seeing a program on TV where buses had dashcams and the footage was used to fine people driving in bus lanes. Nice idea.

goz83 wrote: »

It might also cut down on insurance in the long term (maybe), because the blame would be more easily assigned to who was at fault.

You'd hope that, but I think you lose your no-claims bonus regardless of fault?

goz83 wrote: »

My point is that these devices are very cheap and could be installed at a tiny cost. It would add maybe €100 to the cost of a new car, which costs thousands of euros, unless top of the range stuff is used.

I think Ford is moving towards providing an API to their systems and let people write apps, but a webcam isn't a necessity and
will be an additional drain on the battery.
I've a honda civic with all the electronic extras, and it's a drain on the battery.

goz83

coylemj wrote: »

How does having a camera in your car make you a safer driver? You can always scrub the memory if it doesn't suit you.

It would make you a safer driver, if you knew that most cars had front and rear dash cams installed imo. Motorists usually drive safer if they know they are likely on camera. The owner of the dashcam can erase the footage in his own system, but cannot erase someone elses. In the same way people report dangerous driving to the Gardai, or traffic watch, people could send their footage to the relevant authorities, who might then place fines, or points on people proven to be driving dangerously. Admittedly, it would take years to change peoples thinking, but it would eventually sink in that there is likely a cam recording your driving from several other vehicles.

coylemj wrote: »

The only way a device will make you a safer driver is if the data can be uploaded and studied by your insurance company or the Gardai, without you having the option to turn it off or delete the memory.

Again. The cam in the offending vehicle can be erased, but the cam footage in another vehicle can be used to determine fault and/or dangerous driving.

coylemj wrote: »

The insurance payout would be the same, the camera would simply ensure that the motorist in the right wouldn't lose his NCB as a result of the other guy telling lies. So it would make no difference to insurance overall.

I know the pay-out would not likely change, but insurance companies spend money investigating accidents, especially when there is a dispute as to where the blame lies. If the footage is available, it would take less time and less money to establish who is at fault, cutting expenses and the cost of processing a claim, therefore making it cheaper. The cost saving could be passed onto the customers.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Only if each driver was prepared to go to court when they witness/record an incident of bad/dangerous driving. Otherwise, you'll just fill up YouTube with traffic incidents.

I don't see why someone would need to go to court if their dashcam recorded an incident. Surely the footage would speak for itself. Even if the owner of the footage was required to go to court, it would still make people think twice if say in 10 years time, 3 out of every 10 cars had dash cams installed.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If the Traffic corp had a department to accept and analyse video footage of bad driving and make the process easy, you'd get somewhere.
But in reality, you have to go to a garda station and make a formal statement..

I was mainly thinking along the lines of someone colliding into ones own car, but yeah, it would be great if a separate division was set up for this. Although i'm sure the insurance companies would be happy to accept footage of this sort.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Although I remember seeing a program on TV where buses had dashcams and the footage was used to fine people driving in bus lanes. Nice idea..

That's a great idea. Bus drivers might not come so close to cyclists if their footage could be used in this way

CreepingDeath wrote: »

You'd hope that, but I think you lose your no-claims bonus regardless of fault?.

Why would someone lose their NCB if they were involved in an accident, which was not their fault and no claim was made from ones own insurance? Maybe i'm picking you up wrong? My car was rear ended in October 2011 and it was a write-off. The other drivers insurance was claimed from and my NCB is still intact, even though I informed my insurer about the accident. The property damage was paid within weeks and my insurance has been renewed since. The injury side of the claim is still pending.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I think Ford is moving towards providing an API to their systems and let people write apps, but a webcam isn't a necessity and
will be an additional drain on the battery.
I've a honda civic with all the electronic extras, and it's a drain on the battery.

Looks interesting. Maybe in 50 years, Irish drivers will have something like that integrated into the network. Realistically, a cam, or two is not going to have any significant drain on the battery. If it was a concern, a bigger battery is the answer from factory. Charge me another tenner please.

MugMugs

coylemj wrote: »

The insurance payout would be the same, the camera would simply ensure that the motorist in the right wouldn't lose his NCB as a result of the other guy telling lies. So it would make no difference to insurance overall.

Would there not be an overall reduction in fraudulent claims and as such a reduction in premiums overall as a result of all vehicles being fitted with cameras?

coylemj

MugMugs wrote: »

Would there not be an overall reduction in fraudulent claims and as such a reduction in premiums overall as a result of all vehicles being fitted with cameras?

Yes, it would probably eliminate 'manufactured' accidents but I think the bigger drain on the insurance companies is caused by people exaggerating injuries, loss of income etc. and I don't see cameras having any impact on that problem.

MugMugs

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, it would probably eliminate 'manufactured' accidents but I think the bigger drain on the insurance companies is caused by people exaggerating injuries, loss of income etc. and I don't see cameras having any impact on that problem.

I believe false claims are a significant drain on insurers. Perhaps moreso in the UK but also in the Republic. As such, such a measure would serve to potentially reduce premiums.

This in itself would be of a benefit to drivers in my opinion.

ffocused

GPS will be mandatory in a few years in all new cars here in the EU.

Google ecall, it is similar to Onstar in the states.

goz83

ffocused wrote: »

GPS will be mandatory in a few years in all new cars here in the EU.

Google ecall, it is similar to Onstar in the states.

And for the sake of a few extra measly euro in the manufacturing stage, it would eventually cut down on theft rates too.

I have gps and gsm traking in my car, but I had to install it myself. It wasn't easy getting it into the dash and wiring it up through the roof, but I feel safer for having it there, even though i know it could possibly be jammed, but having both types of signal makes that less likely.

I have yet to find a dashcam that I like. I think they are awful looking things and would be better integrated by the manufacturers.

huggs2

I am sold on getting one now.They should be fitted as standard in new cars,I think its only a matter of time.This seems like a good place to start.
http://dashcamtalk.com/dash-cam-buying-guide/
Can people with them give some comment please.Does anyone have this one?
http://www.finevu.net/newcr500hd.htm
I would be interested in having views on it.