Any good reason for no built-in dash cam recorders?
07-19-16, 01:24 PM
#16
Lexus Champion
I don't think those signs mean "NO DASH CAMS" I think they're just because they don't want people filming bridges or tunnels for terrorism reasons.
http://www.whatcarcamera.com/index.p...l-in-new-york/
so I don't engage in any criminal activity OR cheat on my wife -- so I guess it's ok for me to have a dash cam (and EZ pass!!!!!)
http://www.whatcarcamera.com/index.p...l-in-new-york/
so I don't engage in any criminal activity OR cheat on my wife -- so I guess it's ok for me to have a dash cam (and EZ pass!!!!!)
Last edited by bagwell; 07-19-16 at 01:36 PM.
07-19-16, 01:57 PM
#17
Lexus Test Driver
I don't think those signs mean "NO DASH CAMS" I think they're just because they don't want people filming bridges or tunnels for terrorism reasons.
http://www.whatcarcamera.com/index.p...l-in-new-york/
http://www.whatcarcamera.com/index.p...l-in-new-york/
I haven't been able to find anything online about NYC B/T, only this article about the subway, which actually has rule affirmatively permitting photos:
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/02...osts-city-30k/
Unlawful arrest for subway photography costs city $30K
By Benjamin Kabak
Taking pictures in the subway isn’t illegal, but good luck convincing NYPD’s transit officers of that fact. In what has become a series of similar cases, the City of New York had to pay out $30,000 to a man who was unlawfully detained for snapping some subway shots.
Fox 5’s John Deutzman reports that Robert Palmer was at the Freeman Station in the Bronx last year when cops ordered him to stop shooting photos of the subway. When Palmer respectfully declined to erase his pictures and showed the cops his copy of the subway rules that say, “Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted,” he was handcuffed.
The cops then booked Palmer for not one but three violations. He was charged with, according to Fox, “taking photos,” “disobeying lawful order/impeding traffic,” and “unreasonable noise.” Palmer says he wasn’t being confrontational or rude, and the three charges were eventually dropped. The NYPD admitted that Palmer shouldn’t have been charged, and Palmer sued the city for his unlawful detainment. The actions of police ignorant on the law cost taxpayers that $30,000.
To make matters worse, as Fox 5 news crews were filming this story, Deutzman had his own run in with a transit authority worker. He reports, “Some guy who claimed to be a transit supervisor actually put his hand over the camera’s lens to try to stop the Fox 5 camera guy from recording video. When the so-called supervisor figured out the crew was with Fox 5, he backed off saying he didn’t realize we were ‘working press.’
As the report notes, the NYPD has sent a memo to its service members reminding them that photography is legal. Transit has done the same. Yet, still the cops and employees haven’t gotten the message. How many more taxpayer dollars will it cost the city before the rules become the rules?
Unlawful arrest for subway photography costs city $30K
By Benjamin Kabak
Taking pictures in the subway isn’t illegal, but good luck convincing NYPD’s transit officers of that fact. In what has become a series of similar cases, the City of New York had to pay out $30,000 to a man who was unlawfully detained for snapping some subway shots.
Fox 5’s John Deutzman reports that Robert Palmer was at the Freeman Station in the Bronx last year when cops ordered him to stop shooting photos of the subway. When Palmer respectfully declined to erase his pictures and showed the cops his copy of the subway rules that say, “Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted,” he was handcuffed.
The cops then booked Palmer for not one but three violations. He was charged with, according to Fox, “taking photos,” “disobeying lawful order/impeding traffic,” and “unreasonable noise.” Palmer says he wasn’t being confrontational or rude, and the three charges were eventually dropped. The NYPD admitted that Palmer shouldn’t have been charged, and Palmer sued the city for his unlawful detainment. The actions of police ignorant on the law cost taxpayers that $30,000.
To make matters worse, as Fox 5 news crews were filming this story, Deutzman had his own run in with a transit authority worker. He reports, “Some guy who claimed to be a transit supervisor actually put his hand over the camera’s lens to try to stop the Fox 5 camera guy from recording video. When the so-called supervisor figured out the crew was with Fox 5, he backed off saying he didn’t realize we were ‘working press.’
As the report notes, the NYPD has sent a memo to its service members reminding them that photography is legal. Transit has done the same. Yet, still the cops and employees haven’t gotten the message. How many more taxpayer dollars will it cost the city before the rules become the rules?
Last edited by tex2670; 07-19-16 at 02:10 PM.
07-19-16, 07:10 PM
#18
Lexus Champion
Why are there no built-in dashcams? The reason may be the due diligence required for new equipment on regulated product (including automobiles and aircraft). Firstly, a business case must be made.
Are there original equipment manufacturers offering such a feature? What equipment (both hardware and software), either new or existing, is needed to add this feature? Would it require any changes to existing features (such as the birds-eye view system)? What would be the cost to add this feature: One-time design and development costs; ongoing production costs of the new feature; one-time regulatory approval costs? What could the feature be sold for?
Secondly, but equally as important is the question: Are there any current regulations that would allow or prevent the new feature? If there are any questionable regulations, automakers will have to determine if it is worth the effort (and costs) to fight for new regulations.
Even if such a feature has been designed, it may be going through intensive product and usability testing, as we discuss this. No manufacturer wants to release a half-baked product, and go through another unintended acceleration or Autopilot fiasco.
Having worked in the regulated product industries, I am still surprised at how long this due diligence takes; and as it goes through this due diligence, it is all done in secret. We won't know that such a feature will be offered until it is ready to be introduced.
Are there original equipment manufacturers offering such a feature? What equipment (both hardware and software), either new or existing, is needed to add this feature? Would it require any changes to existing features (such as the birds-eye view system)? What would be the cost to add this feature: One-time design and development costs; ongoing production costs of the new feature; one-time regulatory approval costs? What could the feature be sold for?
Secondly, but equally as important is the question: Are there any current regulations that would allow or prevent the new feature? If there are any questionable regulations, automakers will have to determine if it is worth the effort (and costs) to fight for new regulations.
Even if such a feature has been designed, it may be going through intensive product and usability testing, as we discuss this. No manufacturer wants to release a half-baked product, and go through another unintended acceleration or Autopilot fiasco.
Having worked in the regulated product industries, I am still surprised at how long this due diligence takes; and as it goes through this due diligence, it is all done in secret. We won't know that such a feature will be offered until it is ready to be introduced.
07-20-16, 12:09 AM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
j/k!I'm not paranoid, its just that a vehicle is a private space. I want to have the choice whether to have my movements recorded or not.
07-20-16, 06:59 AM
#20
Lexus Champion
07-20-16, 07:14 AM
#21
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by bagwell
sure a vehicle is your own little private space.......but where do you use that vehicle?
answer: on public roads.
answer: on public roads.
If the government or whoever wants to film me within public space they can do that from stationery points. If I'm going to film myself I want to choose whether or not I want to do that, so I don't want my car to have a built in surveillance camera no. If you want to add one to your car, go right ahead.
If every car had a recording device that operated all the time, that video, audio and data can potentially be used against you as much as it can be used against others to your benefit. We'd all like to think we never do anything wrong, but in reality we all do many things behind the wheel of a car and say many things in private that could be used against is should something happen.
07-20-16, 07:18 AM
#22
Lexus Champion
I have 2 dashcams in my car in case some piece of shti is texting or driving 150mph or whatever and causes an accident that causes damage to my property or injures myself/someone else in my vehicle. oh and feel free to monitor wherever I go or what I say - I don't engage in ANYTHING illegal so I'm not paranoid about being monitored.
Last edited by bagwell; 07-20-16 at 07:30 AM.
07-20-16, 12:18 PM
#23
Lexus Fanatic
That's your decision and that's totally fine. Like I've said, I understand the desire to have dash cams and and I've considered getting one even for the same reason...but I want installation of one to be my choice, and I would prefer that having one in my car to be unusual enough that people don't assume I have one.
You never speed? Never roll a stop sign? Never make an illegal turn, ever? Never say anything when in your car that could be taken out of context and potentially be used against you? Never once? I find that hard to believe.
Like I said, I'm not "paranoid" about being monitored. In general though I would prefer to not be monitored and for my movements and things that I say not be surveilled. I don't think I'm alone in that desire either.
You never speed? Never roll a stop sign? Never make an illegal turn, ever? Never say anything when in your car that could be taken out of context and potentially be used against you? Never once? I find that hard to believe.
Like I said, I'm not "paranoid" about being monitored. In general though I would prefer to not be monitored and for my movements and things that I say not be surveilled. I don't think I'm alone in that desire either.
07-21-16, 02:22 AM
#24
Lexus Test Driver
Maybe it's a global thing. There are some countries that prohibit filming from a vehicle if the camera has a live stream into the car. Maybe it's to prevent driver distraction.
That said, cars with factory 360 degree camera systems like most Nissans allow the driver to see the front camera view when parking. It's a short step to recording that video all the time.
That said, cars with factory 360 degree camera systems like most Nissans allow the driver to see the front camera view when parking. It's a short step to recording that video all the time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post