Just on the idea of the "black box", I work in an Insurance company that kicked the tyres on this a few years back. Main issues were…
I'm sure some startup insurance company could crack it, but the legacy insurance companies are fairly old school IT infrastructure.
Off topic but for those interested, Imogen is giving a talk at CSS on Thrsday June 13th @ 19:00. Free event* but pre-registration required…
https://fb.me/e/51AhBE6Ly
* free but as it is happening in a big bike shop, you can assume you'll end up paying lots 🤣
Imogen Cotter gave an interview on Radio1 Oliver Callan
She has explained she felt scared and anxious on the bike, saying that was due to the lingering impact of the 2022 crash, and found herself crying by the roadside while cycling of late.
Edit: podcast link included, 21:00
He was the clown that was (still is?) on the TV show The Restaurant who's sole reason for being a judge was he apparently was an expert on wines and stuff but yet he rarely got correct after testing the wine type the show's participants brought along. He's just a blowhard.
Most aren't, Every single time I've explained how the "business is busy" chart works on google search to people they are slightly horrorified that it uses people's location data. Less so would have any idea about speed, type of transport etc being recorded. Never overestimnate people when it comes to people's knowledge of such things,
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.
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
Sunday Times. And I'm not sure if I'd classify a food writer as a journalist…
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.
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.
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.
i have bluetooth permanently on on my phone, with location services disabled unless i switch them on?
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.
I don't think it ever did, it just needed bluetooth which is part of location services in android.
What insurance companies are sharing this data with State Agencies?
You’d hardly be intentionally drawing false equivalences would you?
It seems to be effectively mandatory for young drivers trying to get on the road, from my exhaustive engagement with two or three insurers.
I guess there was a valid concern that the covid app gained little by capturing your location.
I think they did express concerns about location data being captured in relation to the Covid app so I guess so
Let's be clear, George Orwell never 'fantasised' about constant surveillance. ,😉
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?
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
It is "active surveillance" that one volunteers to participate in
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.
Haven't heard a peep from ICCL about the active surveillance that is effectively mandatory for new young drivers.
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.
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.
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
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.
How about a solution like this:
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:
Carrot:
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):
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".
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
