Digital Video Cameras should be mandatory in new vehicles | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Digital Video Cameras should be mandatory in new vehicles

油井緋色;1730340 said:
Huh? I never said that, I'm simply saying it's a good idea to shove one into your helmet or car. Nothing about legalities.

And no to the salad thing, ppl dying from obesity = more job openings!
Click to expand...

Oh really. you respond in a thread about MANDATORY cameras- specifically as shown below, and now you are like "oh didn't say anything about legalities, its just a good idea..."
What a joke

Do a little bit of thinking for once and maybe you might realize the sure full retard-ness of thinking that you are protecting yourself from the state, by having the state make a law that means you have to record what you are doing at all times.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
you are comparing side view mirrors and seatbelts to mandatory surveilliance?

I don't see any harm in this. Give me a scenario where this could screw you over if you were innocent. I'm sure somebody out there is more pessimistic than I am.
 
Last edited:
Great, one more person I gotta add to my ignore list.

Come on buddy, read the lines, not in between them. Read them LITERALLY, not
"I think he meant this"
or
"I think he meant that"

No, I meant exactly what I wrote! And here I thought math was the only subject people struggle with.
 
OpenGambit said:
I don't see how an in car camera would save a life considering it can only be used after the fact. I am pretty sure black boxes in airplanes haven't saved any lives either.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they have in terms of changing certain protocols or altering safety procedures. That's not to say that mandatory cameras are a good idea though either. In fact there's a reasonably large difference between a black box type device and a camera.
 
油井緋色;1730343 said:
Great, one more person I gotta add to my ignore list.

Come on buddy, read the lines, not in between them. Read them LITERALLY, not
"I think he meant this"
or
"I think he meant that"

No, I meant exactly what I wrote! And here I thought math was the only subject people struggle with.
Click to expand...


Oh noes, the guy who just graduated from High School put me on ignore.

Come back when you learn English
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
I don't really care what you have in your car. But there is no basis, legal or otherwise, by which you can tell me what to have in MY car.

Maybe you can give an actual situation where an ER team would be benefited by knowing that you were texting on your cell phone before you crashed. And maybe some statistics.. or are you just speculating all of it?

Further the development of passive safety systems... now you are talking about transfering that information to 3rd parties... Even better, and what would you learn that crash test dummies can't provide? Crash facial expressions?

Lastly... protection from being charged?? really?? More like the other way around.
Click to expand...
The point is to assist in determining what went wrong. Once that's established, ways can be found for improvements. There was a time when seat belts weren't required either but much data was collected in researching how they could help save future lives (including video) and eventually they became required by law. Some people still refuse to wear them. That's a choice they make despite breaking the law by doing so and increasing their chance of injury or death.


To quote an orthopedic nurse "Internal injuries can go unnoticed and take time to realize. If we knew what actually occurred in the crash by seeing it, we could more quickly diagnose those injuries or out-rule them. Intra-cranial pressure rises over time and can lead to swelling of the brain. By seeing the actual crash we could quickly realize that the brain may have sustained an injury. We could recognize and treat that injury more quickly, which would improve the overall outcome for the patient."

As for transferring the footage of YOUR crash to car manufacturers...why not? The data collected from crashes today could save many lives in the future and despite how good crash test dummies are...they aren't human and although many crashes are similar, you simply can't replicate the real world in a lab.

If you weren't at fault...what's the problem?
 
jc100 said:
I'm pretty sure they have in terms of changing certain protocols or altering safety procedures. That's not to say that mandatory cameras are a good idea though either. In fact there's a reasonably large difference between a black box type device and a camera.
Click to expand...

He compared the camera to seat belts and rear view mirrors. That was the context of the reply.
 
de Jager said:
The point is to assist in determining what went wrong. Once that's established, ways can be found for improvements. There was a time when seat belts weren't required either but much data was collected in researching how they could help save future lives (including video) and eventually they became required by law. Some people still refuse to wear them. That's a choice they make despite breaking the law by doing so and increasing their chance of injury or death.


To quote an orthopedic nurse "Internal injuries can go unnoticed and take time to realize. If we knew what actually occurred in the crash by seeing it, we could more quickly diagnose those injuries or out-rule them. Intra-cranial pressure rises over time and can lead to swelling of the brain. By seeing the actual crash we could quickly realize that the brain may have sustained an injury. We could recognize and treat that injury more quickly, which would improve the overall outcome for the patient."

As for transferring the footage of YOUR crash to car manufacturers...why not? The data collected from crashes today could save many lives in the future and despite how good crash test dummies are...they aren't human and although many crashes are similar, you simply can't replicate the real world in a lab.

If you weren't at fault...what's the problem?
Click to expand...

If you aren't a child pornographer, whats wrong with bill C-30?
if you aren't a terrorist, whats wrong with strip searches for kids and seniors at airports?
if you aren't a wifebeater/drug dealer/chronic masterbator, whats wrong with the state putting cameras inside your house?
If you are an intelligent human being, why are you still using this line of reasoning?
 
I replied to your quote after that discussion about black boxes not saving lives. That was a seperate statement. Regardless, there's no way this camera idea will fly due to privacy issues.
 
jc100 said:
I replied to your quote after that discussion about black boxes not saving lives. That was a seperate statement. Regardless, there's no way this camera idea will fly due to privacy issues.
Click to expand...

Its a separate sentence, but the context is that the camera, like a black box. has no life saving properties for the person that just crashed. I am not saying it could not possibly have any benefits down the road, but at this point I am pretty skeptical because I haven't seen anything to suggest it.
 
OpenGambit said:
If you aren't a child pornographer, whats wrong with bill C-30?
if you aren't a terrorist, whats wrong with strip searches for kids and seniors at airports?
if you aren't a wifebeater/drug dealer/chronic masterbator, whats wrong with the state putting cameras inside your house?
If you are an intelligent human being, why are you still using this line of reasoning?
Click to expand...
You are on public roads driving a vehicle, which is a privilege not a right, subject to public scrutiny. Or should we not go out in public with all those CCTV cameras around?
 
OpenGambit said:
Its a separate sentence, but the context is that the camera, like a black box. has no life saving properties for the person that just crashed. I am not saying it could not possibly have any benefits down the road, but at this point I am pretty skeptical because I haven't seen anything to suggest it.
Click to expand...
Of course you haven't....because the average person doesn't use them.
 
de Jager said:
Of course you haven't....because the average person doesn't use them.
Click to expand...

No. I am expecting YOU to support your claim that it will have benefits down the road and you haven't provided any.
If you are suggesting that everyone be legally mandated to put a camera in their car you better have something a lot better than... " a nurse said..."
 
Last edited:
de Jager said:
You are on public roads driving a vehicle, which is a privilege not a right, subject to public scrutiny. Or should we not go out in public with all those CCTV cameras around?
Click to expand...

Using the internet isn't a right, neither is flying.
By your reasoning you agree with C-30 and searching old ladies diapers at airports.
 
OpenGambit said:
No. I am expecting YOU to support your claim that it will have benefits down the road and you haven't provided any.
If you are suggesting that everyone be legally mandated to put a camera in their car you better have something a lot better than... " a nurse said..."
Click to expand...
If you read my article again, you will realize that the primary point is to help determine that What, How and Why of a crash. I further went on to add additional ways in which such systems could benefit. Perhaps you should re-read the quote I provided from a medical practitioner stating that it would assist them in treating their patients...which could be you.
 
de Jager said:
If you read my article again, you will realize that the primary point is to help determine that What, How and Why of a crash. I further went on to add additional ways in which such systems could benefit. Perhaps you should re-read the quote I provided from a medical practitioner stating that it would assist them in treating their patients...which could be you.
Click to expand...

I am sure you can find a medical practitioner that says that eating more vegetables will make people healthier, does that mean you are going to make it mandatory for people to eat it?
 
It would help protect the innocent and help convict the guilty.

No objections here.

I wouldn't necessarily object to a clause that states that any footage obtained from the built-in system can only be used for the investigation at hand, and any other incriminating footage (e.g. your camera catches you running a red light earlier in the day) not pertaining to the investigation cannot be used to prosecute you after the fact, if for nothing more than to satisfy the tin foil hat community.
 
DaveTheCanuck said:
It would help protect the innocent and help convict the guilty.

No objections here.

I wouldn't necessarily object to a clause that states that any footage obtained from the built-in system can only be used for the investigation at hand, and any other incriminating footage (e.g. your camera catches you running a red light earlier in the day) not pertaining to the investigation cannot be used to prosecute you after the fact, if for nothing more than to satisfy the tin foil hat community.
Click to expand...
In my article, I stated that the recording would set on a loop only recording the previous 5min unless a crash occurs in which case it then records an additional 15min. So really...a total of 20min.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom