Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122025803#Comment_122025803

Having an optional GPS unit in your car for navigation is significantly different of having a mandatory unit that is automatically transmitting information to a state agency.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026079#Comment_122026079

Only transmitting if breaking the law, it can be anonymised until reviewed by a person, and the data restricted to the location where the law was broken, then deanonymised if confirmed, for that event. The deanonymising can be done automatically without interception by people.

It would not be difficult to do, wait until people on androids ask google where they have been. First time I done it it gave me a google map for weeks, the speeds I was doing, what vehicle I was using, time, date, etc.

Either way, it won't be done, just saying how easily it could be done. People giving out about Big Brother, as others have already alluded to seem blissfully unaware that they invited multiple big brothers to watch them most of the time.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026173#Comment_122026173

Veering into "wake up sheeple" levels of condescension there.

Most people are aware that big tech are harvesting as much data as possible, but they are also aware that big tech are doing it to build a profile on customers so they can try and sell more crap to you, or try and get you to use their products more than anyone else's.

That's a very different scenario to forcing government controlled surveillence devices onto every vehicle.

Making the roads safer comes down to changing driver behaviour. Increased roads policing, increased driver education, and increased penalties for dangerous road users are what is required, not indulging George Orwell fantasties.

nilhg

The thing is though black boxes are being fitted to cars, people volunteer for them for cheaper insurance or if their company car has them fitted, the question is would drivers accept them in they could halve the number of penalty points they have? Or if the law said L or N drivers must have them? Drivers coming back after suspension? If after 12 or 18 months you have an acceptable driving record then presumably the habit of safe driving is established and you can remove it, would that be OK?

It seems mad that the only technology that's ever mentioned to combat the scourge of deaths on our roads is some sort of camera?

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122025844#Comment_122025844

Again, its an absolute cop out to blame the legal industry. It may be a well intentioned post, but as soon as we start saying "yeah, well, what can you expect, lawyers eh" we're excusing people not taking personal responsibility for their own actions. I've had penalty points for speeding. Nobody made me speed. I could've sat behind the slower drivers. I should've paid closer attention to my speedometer. I could've ignored the asshat on my rear bumper. I didn't go looking to instruct a lawyer to find a loophole to get me off - I sucked it up. Lawyers play a very specific role in shaping our laws - if they find loopholes it should be seen as a service to society to make our laws watertight. If they find a defect in the prosecution of offences it should be seen as a service to society to ensure that our police force play by the rule book and don't approach evidence with a sloppy attitude. If laws and procedures are deemed inadequate or unfairly loaded in favour of the offender, that's the job of the legislature.

Just get the laws right. Get the penalty system right. Educate society - that's drivers, police, politicians and judges. Recruit and train a fit-for-purpose roads policing unit. Prosecute offenders properly. And stop trying to wriggle out of personal responsibility.

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026269#Comment_122026269

It's a bit much to then be describing it as Orwellian when nobody is forced to own and drive a car. There are a load of ways in which it could be made to work, loads of safeguards that could be built in in terms of how data can be accessed, who can access it and when. It's proved invaluable in aviation as a means to learning from and preventing accidents and could be used in the same context for motoring. Far better than "Gardai have requested anyone with dashcam footage to contact them".

Don Juan II

How about a solution like this:

1. The "black box" is an opt-in only. No motorist is obliged to have one.
2. It's run and managed by the insurance companies and not the government.
3. The government/gardai will never have access to the data, even in the event of an accident.
4. By allowing the insurance company to install a black box in your car, you are telling them: "hey, I'm a safe driver and I can prove it".
5. So far, this is EXACTLY how black boxes work for new drivers.

Now, this is where I would change things if I were the government.

Legislation is needed to force insurance companies to provide a significant discount for motorists who agree to have a black box and a significant loading for the motorists who don't have a black box. This isn't anything new for insurance companies either - they have ways to compute loading based on driver age, engine size … etc. Having/not-having a black box is another loading factor but the government needs legislation to ensure the gap in price between the 2 premiums is VERY significant.

And legislation is not new in the insurance industry either. The private health insurance market already has legislation in place … e.g. community rating, risk equalisation

So if your current car insurance policy was €600 right now, I think insurance companies should be forced to offer something like this:
- €450 with a black box
- €750 without a black box
There should be no €600 insurance available for you. All the numbers above are examples only and have no basis on reality.

And the beauty of ALL of this is the insurance companies already have all of this in place because insurance companies already offer this service to new drivers.

Motorists are not forced into installing a black box and they are not forced into being monitored. It's an opt-in. But there's a serious carrot there … a significant discount.

And we don't need 100% of motorists to take this up … even a modest percentage of up-take will mean that it should have a significant calming effect on our roads as motorists all over the country will be driving below the speed limit.

It also means the Gardai don't need to perform speed checks - we have a self-policing nation of drivers :)

And if enough drivers have this policy, it will also protect against some of those accidends at 2am on a Sat morning when a car full of teenagers are killed in a single vehicle collision. No amount of Gardai on the road can prevent these … but a black box should help a lot.

The black box systems also pairs to your phone so it knows if you are using your phone when driving.

It's really a Carrot vs Stick approach:

Stick:

• Enforce the speed limits we have
• Gardaí don’t have the resources
• “Shooting fish in a barrel”
• Difficult to get public “buy-in”
• As can been seen from National Slow Down Day, it doesn’t work

Carrot:

• Significant reduction in insurance premiums for safe drivers
• Personal responsibility
• Feels better to be “doing the right thing”
• Realisation in society that speeding is not acceptable
• It’s no longer socially acceptable to speed

I think the carrot approach is much more likely to succeed long term

Great video here from a US company who offers it (but without legislation to control pricing):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UEuQpo8o0k

Mefistofelino

It would be interesting to know how often speeds in excess of the speed limit have been a contributory factor in fatal accidents versus inappropriate but nominally legal speed. GPS tracking will catch the former but its going to do nothing about the drivers driving 120 kmh in heavy fog on the motorway, or through heavy traffic, dangerous overtakes, tailgating etc.

Don Juan II

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026902#Comment_122026902

The black boxes also detect heavy braking, inappropriate cornering and heaving accelleration.

It won't detect 120kph on a motorway in fog.

I think my proposal if adopted by enough of the motoring populaiton would have a calming effect overall

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026632#Comment_122026632

Even this would be a good idea, no data sent anywhere, it rolls on a 30 day loop and only in the event of an accident is it accessed as part of acident analysis but having one on is a legal requirement.

These aren't George Orwell fantasies, big data get a tangible benefit out of doing it to a phone, the government can't and won't want to look at the data. This at least will simplify accident investigations immensely.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026816#Comment_122026816

Something like this could definitely work. As would incorporating the technology into the penalty points system, whereby they become mandatory if someone has more than 6 points on their license.

The other option would to have non-transmitting black-boxes as a mandatory piece of equipment, with the data easily exported (say via a port in the glove box or on the steering column) in a standard format.

If someone is stopped by the Gardaí on suspicion of a road traffic offence, then they have the right to download the last 30 minutes of data. Similarly, if someone is involved in a collision, then the Gardaí have a legal right to take data for a set period of time before and up to the incident.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122023140#Comment_122023140

Haven't heard a peep from ICCL about the active surveillance that is effectively mandatory for new young drivers.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026962#Comment_122026962

I'm sure you can point to the piece of legislation that makes this mandatory - or indeed where any of the data gathered is being shared with a state agency.

The ICCL tend not to get worked up about consumers voluntarily signing up for something in exchange for a discount.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122026962#Comment_122026962

It is "active surveillance" that one volunteers to participate in

Seth Brundle

Stolen Cube recovered by plain clothes gardai in Dublin 9 "sting"…

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/thief-who-tried-to-sell-womans-stolen-bike-online-caught-after-garda-posed-as-fake-buyer/a1290777318.html

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027101#Comment_122027101

If the ICCL complained about this, would they also complain about people leaving the location setting on their phone switched on, which tracks your movement?

CJay1

Let's be clear, George Orwell never 'fantasised' about constant surveillance. ,😉

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027279#Comment_122027279

I think they did express concerns about location data being captured in relation to the Covid app so I guess so

magicbastarder

I guess there was a valid concern that the covid app gained little by capturing your location.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027073#Comment_122027073

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027101#Comment_122027101

It seems to be effectively mandatory for young drivers trying to get on the road, from my exhaustive engagement with two or three insurers.

blackwhite

What insurance companies are sharing this data with State Agencies?

You’d hardly be intentionally drawing false equivalences would you?

TheChizler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027612#Comment_122027612

I don't think it ever did, it just needed bluetooth which is part of location services in android.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122027812#Comment_122027812

This is all really academic, but the point is, I can see a genuine reason for concern with a private company, who may or may not have the option to sell your data or use it for other means, included in the terms and conditions. A state agency would be tied down in legislation, like I said, all academic, it will never happen, or even a tamed down, super secure, no risk of data breach. I particularly like the idea above about it being non reporting, just that it must be on, 30 days records that can only be accessed by an accident investigation team.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122028668#Comment_122028668

i have bluetooth permanently on on my phone, with location services disabled unless i switch them on?

TheChizler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122028890#Comment_122028890

I can't remember the exact details, nor want to, but I think the specific service used to check the strength of a Bluetooth signal from someone else's phone which is used to estimate distance is the same one used for estimating where you are in relation to Bluetooth location beacons, so could technically be used to estimate location if the app was written that way.

Thelonious Monk

https://twitter.com/tomdoorley/status/1780131455701573675

This clown is an Irish Times journalist apparently. If you read through the thread he seems to invent a story about a cyclist killing someone he knew by cycling down Baggot St the wrong way, crashing into them, and then running off. Bizarre.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029032#Comment_122029032

The death on Baggot St, did occur but that is 20 years ago now. It was a courier coming the wrong way (not speeding but was goign the wrong way) and a guy came out from just beside Toners and stepped out in front of him (because he didn't look that way, which is fair enough). Light enough bump according to friends in the area (I worked about 100m away) but the way he fell the hit to the head of the curb killed him instantly. It was a tragic incident, yes the courier was in the wrong but not speeding. Ruined the couriers life, unlike many I see begging for their license back he couldn't function at all he was so destroyed by guilt. To bring up one death from 20 years ago, where the cyclist did not run off, admitted what happened, is sadly not a new low for the IT.

buffalo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029032#Comment_122029032

Sunday Times. And I'm not sure if I'd classify a food writer as a journalist…

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122029076#Comment_122029076

fair enough i never heard of that, i didn't think there was such an incident since 2000 and that was a woman who died

Paddigol

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up that false equivalence. It's precisely why I started the Meanwhile on the Roads thread - to highlight the complete distortion between the consequences of car accidents and cycling accidents, what happens if you hit someone with your bike (1 death in 20-odd years, and that a freak accident?) versus if you hit someone with your car, the sheer number of violent incidents involving cars versus bikes, the economic cost to society of accidents caused by cars versus those caused by bikes etc.

Speeding is a key factor in most RTAs, going by any report/ study I've come across. Half the people I see running red lights are speeding to do so. Even if they weren't, if our genius food critic cannot see the merit in cracking down on dangerous driving and instead thinks "but what about cyclists" is a valid counterargument, then there's no point even discussing the issue with him. You'd expect it from an anonymous keyboard troll in the comments sections, but beyond pathetic for a public figure to publish such a brainfart.