You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I recently installed an app called Autoguard on my phone. When it's fitted onto my dash it records a video of my journey along with speed and location. It was really just an experiment to see how well it worked. However, it got me to thinking - why aren't all vehicles be fitted with a similar device from new. A forward facing and a rear facing camera, enough memory to record 60 minutes or so of a journey, a GPS to record speed and position, a motion sensor to detect any sudden loss of motion and to save the last video segment somewhere "safe" for future retrieval. It could be of enormous assistance in any accident inquiries, such as showing how road design cold help reduce further accidents or determing fault. It would cost peanuts if manufactured and fitted when the car was being built too.
Can it calculate VED as a pence per mile too, and issue speeding penalties on the spot please!?
I have thought these should exist for some time now.
Makes total sense but will be unlikely to happen as people remain convinced they should be 'free' and not monitored by authorities.
[quote=thebikechain ]I have thought these should exist for some time now.
Makes total sense but will be unlikely to happen as people remain convinced they should be 'free' and not monitored by authorities.
Oh - I can see another whole level of monitoring being available of they were also fitted a means of uploading data to some central location but I'm not going anywhere near suggesting that.
I've been wandering this for a while now, and can't for the life of me think why car companies are so reluctant to push boundaries in this area.
It's more than likely they're all afraid of setting off the control freak alarm bells and losing sales because of it.
It would cost peanuts if manufactured and fitted when the car was being built too.
easy cowboy - don't go inferring that integrating a few pence worth of commonly available technology into a car is 'easy'. Easy doesn't comply with the notion of optional extras , upselling and special editions. The car industry is still milking a 10 year roll out of the inclusion of 3.5mm jackplugs.
Really want a camera on the driver with the video remotely uploaded to catch all the chatting on phone, doing the cross word in traffic jams, eating lunch etc....
new drivers can have a similar device fitted to reduce their premiums. Me, there's no bloody way i'd have such thing in my car thanks.
I've been wandering this for a while now, and can't for the life of me think why car companies are so reluctant to push boundaries in this area.
Because they sell you an image of open highways, good looking girls fawning over you as you speed off into the horizon, free of other road users.
This technology shatters this dream.
[quote=M6TTF ]new drivers can have a similar device fitted to reduce their premiums. Me, there's no bloody way i'd have such thing in my car thanks.
Why not though?
Druidh, tell us more about this app
Personally I don't see the problem with camera's fitted to cars. So long as they are used for evidence purposed and not for remote monitoring
[quote=richmtb ]Druidh, tell us more about this app
Personally I don't see the problem with camera's fitted to cars. So long as they are used for evidence purposed and not for remote monitoring
It's just the first one I found, so there might be better available. Like I said, it was really just curiosity.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hovans.autoguard&hl=en
I'm just running the free version at the moment,
Autoguard is the one I use at the mo. Was tempted to get a "proper" in-car recorder but can't see the benefit of spending £150+ over this free app and a £6 eBay windscreen mount for the phone.
Great at what it does, and I'm hoping it'll be invaluable in sorting out insurance when one of the local idiots that seem hell-bent on goading me into a street race finally overdoes it and causes a smash. Seems that pretty much every car in Asia and Russia has one going by the number of YouTube videos, and I can't see why we don't do the same over here. It's certainly more acceptable to me to have one of these sat on the dashboard, rather than an insurance/government blackbox recording my every move.
why would YOU want to provide evidence of YOUR possible law breaking or liability for an accident? Only people who believe they will never cause an accident would volunteer for such a thing. So either it needs to result in some financial benefit (e.g. insurance discount) or regulatory requirement.
I would if it knocked a significant chunk off my insurance. If it was used properly it would significantly improve road safety, traffic flow and remove the most dangerous drivers from the road. The reality is the government doesn't have the balls and the public wouldn't stomach the immediate cost wihtout something in return and the majority of people are more than happy to continue driving as they currently do, getting away with it, after all it's not them causing the accidents, it's all the bad drivers. Look at the rubbish spouted over speed cameras being tax machines. Whilst drivers continue to portray this sort of attitude nothing will change without massive government intervention.
I would include myself in this group of people in denial about their driving skills anlong with most other road users, then again when was the last time any of us had a proffessional instructor critique our driving in a real world situation, for me 1988 when I passed my test.
[quote=poly ]why would YOU want to provide evidence of YOUR possible law breaking or liability for an accident? Only people who believe they will never cause an accident would volunteer for such a thing. So either it needs to result in some financial benefit (e.g. insurance discount) or regulatory requirement.
But everyone on here is the best driver in the world and it's always someone else's fault. 🙄
I'd be willing to bet that compulsory tachometers made the trucking industry very considerably safer.
Why not though?
because im the first to admit i don't drive to the letter of the law.
I'd be willing to bet that compulsory tachometers made the trucking industry very considerably safer
would be interesting to see what the stats are actually - mind you tachos have been around for quite along time so the comparison now would be with a time when road conditions and trucks were very different.
Curious as to how strictly tachos are policed these days in terms of speed rather than working hours. I fairly commonly encounter trucks on the motorway that are travelling faster than the should for extended distances, but on A roads/single carriageways apart from the A9 trucks pretty much universally travel at 50% over the national speed limit (for trucks)
I'd have a black box, but last time I checked they are only on offer for people who do low mileages. If that changes I'll have one.
[quote=maccruiskeen ]I fairly commonly encounter trucks on the motorway that are travelling faster than the should for extended distances, but on A roads/single carriageways apart from the A9 trucks pretty much universally travel at 50% over the national speed limit (for trucks)
Classic for me on the A9 is trundling aling at 50mph in the van and being flashed by following HGVs for not going fast enough!
I'm not convinced by all this technology, I understand that it is a progeression, but a progression of what, All i can see is people making money out of poorer people.
If people want them then fine, but for me it would just be another extra thing to go wrong. but I'm still in the dark ages with phones,laptops and all this jargon.
what will it cost to use the said footage as most of the time for you to get video footage it costs unless its a criminal matter.
All i can see is people making money out of poorer people.
Well it's not making money, it saves you money. The insurance company offers you much lower premiums - that's the whole point.
[quote=Rscott ]
what will it cost to use the said footage as most of the time for you to get video footage it costs unless its a criminal matter.
The video would be recorded on a device in the car. The memory card would be removed, put into a computer and the video played. It would take 10 minutes and would cost less than closing the road while the accident investigators take measurements etc. Improvements to road safety would also be possible based on the video evidence. What cost do you put on human life?
i got stopped on the M1 for a random tacho check, before he put my card into his machine the vosa inspector asked me if he was going to find anything on there, i replied 'no. but there might be a few overspeeds' (tacho records anything over 100kmh as overspeed, even though the legal limit for a coach on a motorway is 70mph)
his reply? 'we're not interested in overspeeds, just infringements on driving hours'
my personal opinion on trucks/buses speeding is that it aint too clever, because if you have any type of accident there is a digital record of your speed at the time.
Well it's not making money, it saves you money. The insurance company offers you much lower premiums - that's the whole point.
Not necessarily so.
If the monitoring shows that you're not the good driver you think you are, then your premiums will go up up up. They'll know your speeds, locations, times you travel, all of which may lead them to conclude after a few months that you are a high-risk driver.
HUNDREDS of lorry drivers are set to cause a week of disruption on Scottish roads by sticking strictly to 40mph – in a bid to force the Government to increase the speed limit for HGVs.A week-long campaign seeking a change in the law to enable trucks to drive at 50mph was launched in Inverness today.
Driver Conor McKenna, 28, who is spearheading the protest, said lorries over 7.5 tonnes having to drive 20mph slower than cars on A-class roads was leading to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
He said: ““Cars overtake at ridiculous angles. It’s all day every day, and the A9 is horrendous. It means we’re always nervous when we’re driving.”
The “40mph week” will see lorry drivers insist on driving strictly at required speed limits.
Mr McKenna said this causes hold-ups and, as a result, lorry drivers often break the limit to keep traffic flowing.
He added: “We want to make the public aware [b]we’re breaking the law on a regular basis [/b]to keep traffic moving.
“I’ve had six points on my licence in the past few months because [b]I’ve been driving above the speed limit[/b] because of the tailback behind me.”
Up to 1,500 drivers from all over Britain has committed an interest.
Will it be time and date stamped with accurate and reliable calibration to speed, And who will control, will it be linked to the car's ECU, so if i change my clock it changes. or will this be set from purchase, asifit is possible to change it could be flaud as evidance.
If it does workout as free then great, but CCTV in car parks is ment to be there for safety but when needed in a civil matter can not always be accessed.
And as for the price of a human life, there isn't one in my eyes, but why should i fork out for one when i know i Drive safely and with in the rules
[b]GaryLake[/b] - Member
Can it calculate VED as a pence per mile too
So a tax on living in the countryside then
[quote=Rscott ]
And as for the price of a human life, there isn't one in my eyes, but why should i fork out for one when i know i Drive safely and with in the rules
I don't break the law but I don't mind paying for a police force to uphold it as I believe that makes me safer.
By the way i'm not against the idea, i'm just not sold on the idea.
[i] GaryLake - Member
Can it calculate VED as a pence per mile too
So a tax on living in the countryside then [/i]
As opposed to the current situation where a life style choice of living in a rural area is being subsidised by those living in urban areas?
( 😉 )
If the monitoring shows that you're not the good driver you think you are, then your premiums will go up up up. They'll know your speeds, locations, times you travel, all of which may lead them to conclude after a few months that you are a high-risk driver.
Seems like a perfect solution. Set premiums based on your own actual behaviour (rather than your age/job which is terribly unfair) and prove who was at fault in the event. Great.
Been using something similar for a year now to mitigate the crippling cost of insuring my teenage sons:
http://www.co-operativeinsurance.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1286521010203,CFSweb/Page/Insurance-Car
Three benefits really: 1.) lower cost insurance 2.) improved mpg 3.) kids who drive responsibly.
As for cameras - far too many of these already, not in favour of.
@druidh,
are these guys for real?
very probably - if hgvs were driving within the law then on any single carriageway they wouldn't be driving much faster than a tractor, which means pretty much all the traffic would be driving at that speed too.
To the wider public the concept that truck speeds should be increased is unattractive but the reality for all road uses if those limits were adhered too would be just as unattractive. Its a novel protest to threaten to obey the law.
The problem truck drivers face is if they drive at the legal limit the ensuing tail back leads to countless suicide overtaking manoeuvres - those moves aren't the trucker's fault but they are their problem, they are always going to be first at the scene of the accident.
Dash mounted cameras are becoming common on trucks and buses.
Sounds like a good idea for cars too, along with tachographs, speed limiters, operator licencing (after proving to be of good repute and having adequate finances), daily walk round checks, maintenance records etc.
But do they actually save you money. Some googling indicated that you're looking at approx 11% lower premium, but could go up 15% if you are 'naughty', which would seen to include meerly driving at night?
Ideal. High-risk drivers [i]should[/i] pay higher premiums so that safer drivers like me can pay less! This is a great method of actually identifying which drivers are higher-risk rather than merely relying on statistics.If the monitoring shows that you're not the good driver you think you are, then your premiums will go up up up. They'll know your speeds, locations, times you travel, all of which may lead them to conclude after a few months that you are a high-risk driver.
I'm sure it will happen soon anyway. It may not be compulsory right away, but the negative financial implications of not doing it will be compelling I'm sure!
A decent integrated GPS with a database of speed limits would be able to topline vehicle engine output & speed to the legal limit of the stretch of road the driver is on, preventing speeding and saving lives.
EU rule by 2020 I reckon!
Some googling indicated that you're looking at approx 11% lower premium
Can't wait to be £20 per year better off
Well it's not making money, it saves you money. The insurance company offers you much lower premiums - that's the whole point
Lower until you break the speed limit, then it's much higher. We all do it even if only a little. Which is why I told the insurance company to jog on when they asked if I'd like to have one fitted. (and the premium wasn't that much lower)
Might as well take the next step and just have the computer drive the car as well. Bring on an electric, fully autonomous Google car and let's see what that does to insurance premiums...
Do you know that for a fact though? Not saying they don't but I read the link Stoner provided and speed is not mentioned. It says they are concerned about smoothness of acceleration/braking/cornering and where & how much you drive which as far as I'm concerned are more directly relatable to having an accident than safely exceeding the speed limit (not that condone that!)Lower until you break the speed limit, then it's much higher.
Do you know that for a fact though?
Yes, my existing insurer rang me up and asked if I'd like to have one fitted for a partial premium refund. Sticking to speed limits was part of the deal - I lost the premium reduction if I didn't.
It was a few years back and interestingly not on the list of insurers in Stoner's link.
My journeys in my car are private and have absolutely nothing for you or anyone else to be bothered about.
So no, stick your black boxes right up yerarse.
I Knew someone that had one of these fitted for better insurance premiums. Just by my house there's a narrow country lane with 30 limit running along side an A road. She got a very angry letter from the insurance saying she'd been driving at 55 in a 30 because the GPS picked up the wrong the road.
[i]she'd been driving at 55 in a 30 because the GPS picked up the wrong the road. [/i]
that's the problem with speed limiting based on gps as well - suddenly half the cars slow down to 30 on the motorway 'cos it runs parrelel to an urban road for 200 yards.
she'd been driving at 55 in a 30 because the GPS picked up the wrong the road.
It isn't done like that, it'd be a nightmare to manage
They simply have a bit of software that builds a profile of your driving over a period of time, stray beyond whatever parameters they set and you'll get flagged up.
My journeys in my car are private and have absolutely nothing for you or anyone else to be bothered about
Right. So you don't use public roads then?
Right. So you don't use public roads then?
You're aware of a system that's universally used to identify drivers?
I agree with bikebouy on this. Invasion of privacy and will penalise safe drivers who occasionally 'make progress' while rewarding some truly appalling drivers who can't see further than their bonnet, so drive slowly causing mayhem all around them.
[quote=bikebouy ]My journeys in my car are private and have absolutely nothing for you or anyone else to be bothered about.
Not until you are involved in an accident.....
[quote=Woody ]I agree with bikebouy on this. Invasion of privacy and will penalise safe drivers who occasionally 'make progress' while rewarding some truly appalling drivers who can't see further than their bonnet, so drive slowly causing mayhem all around them.
Back to my OP then. This isn't about tracking all movements. My suggestion is that there is no "upload" facility and the data is only made available in the event of an accident. That's quite different to those currently available via insurance companies and the like.
Back to my OP then. This isn't about tracking all movements. My suggestion is that there is no "upload" facility and the data is only made available in the event of an accident. That's quite different to those currently available via insurance companies and the like.
Well given that insurance companies are not beyond finding tiny technicalities as a means to refuse any claim, I suspect they'll never pay out again if they get to micro analyse everyone's driving prior to an accident and why would any insurance company that looks like their client may be the guilty party hand over the data?
This would be a great idea if.
1. The data wasn't routinely available to insurance companies as they will just use it as a reason to increase policies. The whole point of insurance is to pool risk and reduce the cost when accidents happen. If the insurance companies can track every individuals driving and then price accordingly then its not really insurance any more, it's just a crap savings/payment scheme.
2. The info wasn't available to the police except in the case of an acident. Nobody is going to sign up to a scheme that means they could be done for speeding if they decide trolling along at 70 on an empty motorway in the middle of the night was a waste of everyone's time.
3. The data can only be accessed with the drivers consent or cout order/police stop and search/reasonable suspicion powers. We don't need to tell the autoritiries where we are 24/7. Police state anyone?
4. The data can't be used to invalidate an insurance claim, just to assign fault.
That way its an asset to all, as it ensures fault can accuratly be attributed, encouraging careful driving as you will get done if your drive like a knob and crash/get caught red handed. But it's not just a rod for our backs as if you drive carefully then nothing is different from today.
Might as well take the next step and just have the computer drive the car as well. Bring on an electric, fully autonomous Google car and let's see what that does to insurance premiums...
I'm half tempted to say "yes please, bring it on" and half tempted to say no.
The reason for saying no is that last night on the M6 I had the inside lane to myself. Barely touched the cruise control. The middle and outside lanes were rammed with nose to tail cars doing anything from 55 to 80mph, constant waves of braking and accelerating. Everyone just hogging the middle lane. Utter morons.
Meanwhile, there's me, undertaking everything for mile after empty mile. Occasionally had to jump into the middle lane to get past a lorry or a moron doing 45mph but otherwise pretty trouble free. Point being though that the motorway was running at 2/3rds capacity. Auto driven cars would up road capacity by smoothing out the traffic completely. But it would mean I couldn't undertake everything. Hmm, dilemma. 😉
My suggestion is that there is no "upload" facility and the data is only made available in the event of an accident
Feature creep.
Pass a law, it reasonable.
1 year later extend it a little now people are more accustomed to technology / social situation.
1 year later extend it a little now people are more accustomed to technology / social situation.
1 year later extend it a little now people are more accustomed to technology / social situation.
1 year later extend it a little now people are more accustomed to technology / social situation.
and so on.
The reason for saying no is that last night on the M6 I had the inside lane to myself. Barely touched the cruise control. The middle and outside lanes were rammed with nose to tail cars doing anything from 55 to 80mph, constant waves of braking and accelerating. Everyone just hogging the middle lane. Utter morons.
That's not the sort of environment I'd be comfortable using cruise control in
Big multi billion £ insurance companies aren't so stupid that you can out think them on a STW thread with a few minutes thought, in general.
yep I'd go for that right now. However I think the real benefit from this would be if it was rolled out across the board, every motor vehicle fitted with a black box. Bet KSIs would be drastically reduced. probability of it happening in next 10years? zilch, reckon it will happen tho.I would if it knocked a significant chunk off my insurance
Data upload only after an accident would keep my tinfoil hat happy but aslong as it was guaranteed there would be no snooping realtime would be better and less likely to abuse (from drivers) I guess. enforcement tricky tho.
It would benefit young drivers much more, if they can really identify boy racers. Cos there's currently no reliable way to identify them, and all young people pay the price.
I use my mini HD camera mounted to the dash and connected to a mini usb power lead that drops into the dash whenever i'm out in the car, I've had one beautiful rare car written off years ago by a ditzy female driver and i've recently had some very close shaves due to idiots on rural roads which if there were to be a collision between two cars it would be split 50/50 between the insurers which i don't class as fair so my HD camera is set to loop function (15mins) and it records everything out the front window, so if i'm hit and it's no fault of my own i have the evidence of the other drivers fault.
Does it have an impact related record store function? If not it would be simple to set up.
Does it have an impact related record store function? If not it would be simple to set up.
AutoGuard does, using the accelerometer in your phone.
and it records everything out the front window, so if i'm hit and it's no fault of my own i have the evidence of the other drivers fault.
As long as it happens within the view of the camera lens
No keen myself, i'm known to make progress when the conditions are right and woudnt want a record of this available cheers all the same.
So a tax on living in the countryside then
I live in the countryside.
The USA has recently introduced a black box requirement, without cameras. It is purely a data recorder that records various bits of data fom around the car. It is normally triggered when the airbags fire, so is a good recorder of who was doing what in an accident.
The technology is available to go further than this, but until there is legislation forcing it, I can imagine car makers will not introduce it voluntarily as there are plenty of customers who do not want "big brother to be watching them", and therefore would buy their car elsewhere.
Haven't Renault got a speed sign recognition system in their cars? So if the car knows the speed limit, it could feasibly control to it....
Haven't Renault got a speed sign recognition system in their cars? So if the car knows the speed limit, it could feasibly control to it...
No need to go to the expense of sign recognition the data is all electronically available and used by companies like Road Angel
I would be interested to try them out especially with kids at/approaching driving age.
I hope they get the braking sorted out - my understanding at the moment is that sudden braking gets you brucey penalties not bonuses. As a policeman on the radio said, this is clearly absurd. If you have to brake, you have to brake!
I've tried both Autoguard and another app called Dailyroads Voyager. I prefer Dailyroads 🙂
I have no problem with it filming my driving as if I were to cause an accident, I would be trying to blame the other driver. But it also means I have concrete proof if someone else causes one. Plus you get to catch some funny stuff sometimes 🙂
and it records everything out the front window, so if i'm hit and it's no fault of my own i have the evidence of the other drivers fault.As long as it happens within the view of the camera lens
Yeah that's the problem, although the camera does record with a 114 degree angle so it captures the full bonnet and either side of the car and clearly shows my position on the road, and coupled with the data from my Navigon GPS app on the iphone it's better than having to rely on my word against their word in court.
It's been beneficial to have it so far as last month a young boy pulled out on me on a country road nr to Dumfries, i was travelling at 50mph on an A road, good road conditions, and you could clearly see him pulling up to the junction, looking at me then pulling out to cross the crossroads as he clearly spun his tyres on the surface and then sat there as his car stalled half way across the road, i had to slam on the brakes and take evasive action onto the other side of the carrigeway and verge, buckling an alloy wheel to avoid him and came to a halt. he saw me get out of the car with the camera and walk towards him and he panicked and reversed back up the road he came from and turned around and shot off. I went to the police to report it and they said it was my word against his and they couldn't do anything so i showed them the video footage and that changed their attitude right away - he's being charged with driving with undue care and attention and fleeing the scene of an accident (I think - not 100% sure) so as he's just passed his test i expect he'll lose his licence - good enough for him as if it wasn't for the fact i have track day brakes, decent expensive suspension, sticky tyres and hundreds of hours experience driving on the track he'd be in hospital and my car would be written off as it was very-very close to being a big accident due to his inexperience and stupidity.
I would assume it means regular hard braking. Normally one would not get into this situation more than once a week at most.
So... what video recorder that doesn't need coupling to a phone?
that sudden braking gets you brucey penalties not bonuses. As a policeman on the radio said, this is clearly absurd. If you have to brake, you have to brake!
Sudden braking means you've failed to anticipate what is occuring on the road. It may be because someone is stupid, and not your fault, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have anticipated it. At least that was how I was taught. Having to use the brake pedal on the motorway except in complete stop start traffic similarly usually means poor anticipation.
There are probably some emergency brake situations where it really is impossible to anticipate, but realistically, every time I've ever emergency braked it was a failure of anticipating, even when it was someone else's stupid manouver.
So if you're having to use the brake absolutely loads, do tons of emergency stops, chances are you're a really bad driver.
BMW fit gps trackers as standard, Citroen possibly other in the PSA group do too. There are benefits for all road users with Telematics.
For the insurance company which other than taking a normal business profit(if there lucky) does just pool the risk and distribute it by premiums to customers has an opportunity to reflect that premium to you as an individual not just someone like you based on age, gender, postcode, credit score.
They also get early notification of an accident which helps manage accident cost and further reduce premiums.
The motorist gets premiums that reflect their driving style, feedback on how to improve it (that'll be popular) and all sorts of possibilities such as which roads are dangerous etc. And of course the premium will be based on them not people like them which must be good?
There are still those who wont like the idea of being tracked but unless you manage the settings of your phone thats probably happening anyway, why not allow to your advantage.
Lastly from the viewpoint of a road user who is not always a motorist if it may go someway to reduce the 3,000 deaths we have on UK roads each year and it will be a start until its linked to google maps and automated controls etc.
Whats not to like ? (as long as they don't invent a bicycle version)
There are still those who wont like the idea of being tracked but unless you manage the settings of your phone thats probably happening anyway,
They 'the watchers' 😉 obviously think I'm desk-bound then