ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dashcams good/ bad

#42
I dealt with many insurance claims for our fleet at my last company and a few of them went 50/50 liability. They wouldn't have gone that way if we had evidence, i think dashcams are great, as there are too many lying scrotes out there who won't admit fault.

As for the OP's privacy invasion... You have no right to privacy in public.
 
#43
Can see the point for your fleet, but how many people are getting tripped up by there own cameras and could it of been worse for your company if you had them, as in your drivers causing more of the accidents? ,on a different note could people get sued for privacy in the future?
 
#44
From what I've seen dashcams are wielded by the kind of c**t who really can't drive. Usually an absolute flannel in a Vauxhall Agila doing 20/40 mph everywhere with no lane discipline and loves a bit of racing lines on a roundabout.
We have them in our trucks at work it's a life saver with the way some people drive saved me 4k last year I've one in the Clio too
 
#51
Sounds like you're just pissed you can't act a c**t in your car anymore for fear of being caught by other people's dash cam.

How many cameras do you think you're on when you walk around town? If you wanna stay private stay home.
 
#52
Sounds like you're just pissed you can't act a c**t in your car anymore for fear of being caught by other people's dash cam.

How many cameras do you think you're on when you walk around town? If you wanna stay private stay home.


How many cameras do you think you're on when you walk around town? If you wanna stay private stay home.[/QUOTE]
As most of my driving is done early hours and may pass only 3-4 cars coming my way to work and back I've got no fear of problems with dash cams , also there is a time and place for everything. Never act a [email protected]#t as you get bit on the arsed in the end.[/QUOTE]
 
#53
What irritates me about the surveillance society the sheeple are happily drifting into is the assumption that we must record everything 'just in case' - because, you know, we are all going to do something wrong and must therefore be filmed so we can be punished the moment it happens. What next - DNA-swabbing and fingerprinting minutes after birth, 'just in case' we turn into a criminal at some undetermined point in the future?

Where is the personal and social responsibility? Where is the common sense? What exactly are the morals we are teaching? All we are breeding are children who will grow up thinking it's normal to be constantly watched, so will it just end up that people think it's ok to do 'bad' things when there aren't cameras around because they can't get caught? That's the same retarded logic as my mate who will do 50mph down a tiny residential side street with cars parked each side of it (because there won't be speed traps in the side street) but who'll only do 60mph on an empty dual carriageway - he's more concerned with not getting stopped or zapped by the Old Bill than actually driving as anyone with some intelligence would.

Studies have shown that people behave differently when they are watched or think they are being watched. CCTV is basically the modern day religion - an all-seeing, omnipresent 'big brother' watching your every move, so don't you dare do anything wrong or so help you!
 

JB21

ClioSport Club Member
#54
I have a camera to reduce the risk of being mugged off in the case of a disputed accident as I've already said, and me having one has already been fully justified.

Last year on my way home from work some daft cow decided to pull out on me and we collided. She claimed I had my indicator on so partial blame was thrown across by her insurance company. At this point her insurance company didn't know I had footage, my insurance sent them the footage and literally within the hour they replied accepting full responsibility, case closed.

Now if I didn't have footage that would have been disputed and more than likely it would have been declared I was partly to blame, as I couldn't prove I didn't have my indicator on and she had her teenage son with her so 2 against 1, therefore an accident recorded on my record leading to higher premiums.

Camera = good

I don't know why some people get so irritated with CCTV and the likes, if you ain't doing nothing wrong then why would you care? "yeah but it invades our privacy" these people are just naive to what s**t is actually going on, on UK streets, they'd think differently if one day they actually needed it and it wasn't there.
 
#55
One of the main issues with CCTV is that it only rarely actually stops something happening - most just dumbly record hours and hours of footage for no real reason, most of which then gets kept seemingly forever 'just in case'. And even if the cameras are manned in a secretive office buried within a local council building or at Police HQ, they're still ineffective at stopping things happening if there aren't the boots on the ground to get there and intervene immediately.

It's all very well having a record of something bad happening, but if you've got to live with the outcome of said event for the rest of your life (whatever the event or the outcome is) having it recorded is not going to be much comfort. The perpetrator of an act might get caught a bit quicker but they have still done it, CCTV cameras present or not. Surely we'd rather such things didn't happen in the first place? Which comes back to personal / social / moral responsibility and knowing how to behave properly.

The woman you mention should have had the moral fibre to think past her next insurance renewal and just held her hands up and apologised. Are more cameras really going to stop this 'get away with what you can' mentality? Or just enforce it? Because when the cameras are everywhere, you might as well try it on because you might 'get lucky' and not have had it caught on camera, innit.


The "if you aren't doing anything wrong..." argument is never one I can understand. If I'm not doing anything wrong, why do you need to record me? And if I am doing something wrong, perhaps it's just the fact that I'm human and make mistakes? Just because one makes a mistake, it shouldn't automatically mean having the book thrown at them - we are human, we are fallible, we are (or should be) constantly learning from our life experiences.

If we are taught properly in the first place, we have the correct mental attitude/mindset to know and acknowledge that we aren't perfect, and accept we must take responsibility for and learn from the mistakes we will inevitably sometimes make - thus, there is no need to monitor our every move and then punish us the second we slip up, or enforce ridiculous laws that any person with common sense knows are designed to stop those devoid of braincells from hurting themselves (more's the pity - Darwin would disapprove).

When we're all screaming in frustration and punching the blank dashboard of the mindless GooglePod that is trundling along at 27mph on an empty road you used to do 60 down, because driving skills have been dumbed down and automated so completely by taking away more and more responsibility from drivers 'just in case' they make a mistake, we might finally realise that personal responsibility is an infinitely preferable option.
 
#56
For me our freedom and privacy it getting eroded away, that's what the government wants. It seems people are happy to help them get it aswell. Just because you don't like dash cams doesn't mean your up to no good.
 
#64
I think there's two clearly seperate dashcam user groups;
1. The people who genuinely have them to prove innocence in the event of an accident.
2. Social justice warriors who think they're making the world better.
#2 can be seen all over facebook and youtube
"ERMARGERRRRD, LOOKO!!!!! This lorry drove through a village! think of tha childwun!"

I'll have a dashcam when I can also have a roof-cam, bumper cam a wing-cam, and the whole lot is constantly uploading to CAMS control.
 

McGherkin

ClioSport Club Member
#66
#2 can be seen all over facebook and youtube
"ERMARGERRRRD, LOOKO!!!!! This lorry drove through a village! think of tha childwun!"

I'll have a dashcam when I can also have a roof-cam, bumper cam a wing-cam, and the whole lot is constantly uploading to CAMS control.
It's only a matter of time before they start making radar-gun dashcams.


'ASSHOLE IN BMW DRIVES AT 86MPH ON EMPTY MOTORWAY - CHILD KILLER'
 
#67
It's only a matter of time before they start making radar-gun dashcams.


'ASSHOLE IN BMW DRIVES AT 86MPH ON EMPTY MOTORWAY - CHILD KILLER'
Part of the longer term plan of these 'connected vehicles' is that they either communicate with roadside infrastructure, communicate via 4G/5G/whatever, or communicate with each other (such as wirelessly or through sending information via LED DRLs) - the aim being that every vehicle is monitored and tracked at all times 'for the greater good', which will be sold as reducing congestion, accidents, etc etc.

And once they have that nailed down, it won't be long before Pay As You Drive road use can be introduced and speed limits can be enforced constantly at all times, even when they are wrong because they have set been campaigning local NIMBYs and the previous free-flow traffic speeds were entirely appropriate for the location/conditions/time of day.

There are already people out there who want to control your speed for the sake of controlling your speed, even though the benefits are nebulous. For example, Lancashire want to put cameras on roads with no accident issues (https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...52925/dft-rejects-call-to-change-camera-rules) and Sustrans / BRAKE / 20s Plenty / the usual anti-car brigade (dressed up as 'safety' or 'sustainable transport' charities) want to make 20mph the default limit when there are streetlights about, rather than 30mph, so even at 4am on a main distributor road in any given area with even just a few houses, you'd be crawling along and falling asleep at the wheel so that the happy, smiley children sitting indoors on their PlayStations because of the hundreds of paedophiles wandering every street can feel 'safe' when they walk the 6 steps from their front doors to the rear of mummy's Volvo landbarge.

At least now we can use our brains and eyes to judge appropriate speeds and whether or not the limit matches - I will be a very angry man with very high blood pressure if I can no longer make that choice for myself and have to suffer some of the roads with clearly NIMBY speed limits, such as those detailed on SABRE: http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32099&hilit=worst+20mph
 
#68
Part of the longer term plan of these 'connected vehicles' is that they either communicate with roadside infrastructure, communicate via 4G/5G/whatever, or communicate with each other (such as wirelessly or through sending information via LED DRLs) - the aim being that every vehicle is monitored and tracked at all times 'for the greater good', which will be sold as reducing congestion, accidents, etc etc.

And once they have that nailed down, it won't be long before Pay As You Drive road use can be introduced and speed limits can be enforced constantly at all times, even when they are wrong because they have set been campaigning local NIMBYs and the previous free-flow traffic speeds were entirely appropriate for the location/conditions/time of day.

There are already people out there who want to control your speed for the sake of controlling your speed, even though the benefits are nebulous. For example, Lancashire want to put cameras on roads with no accident issues (https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...52925/dft-rejects-call-to-change-camera-rules) and Sustrans / BRAKE / 20s Plenty / the usual anti-car brigade (dressed up as 'safety' or 'sustainable transport' charities) want to make 20mph the default limit when there are streetlights about, rather than 30mph, so even at 4am on a main distributor road in any given area with even just a few houses, you'd be crawling along and falling asleep at the wheel so that the happy, smiley children sitting indoors on their PlayStations because of the hundreds of paedophiles wandering every street can feel 'safe' when they walk the 6 steps from their front doors to the rear of mummy's Volvo landbarge.

At least now we can use our brains and eyes to judge appropriate speeds and whether or not the limit matches - I will be a very angry man with very high blood pressure if I can no longer make that choice for myself and have to suffer some of the roads with clearly NIMBY speed limits, such as those detailed on SABRE: http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32099&hilit=worst+20mph
Just leave 30mins earlier and take your time do you drive for a living @White16valver
 
#69
Just leave 30mins earlier and take your time do you drive for a living @White16valver
But if the road is empty and clear and a speed of X is appropriate, why should we be forced to travel at X-10mph or X-20mph (or even X-30 or 40mph in some extreme instances)?

Since the Government changed the guidance from 'set the speed limit at or near the 85th percentile of traffic speeds' (which leaves only the fastest 15% of the drivers, i.e. the nutters, out of the equation and assumes that the majority of people, the 85%, are normal, sensible people making sensible choices) to 'use the mean (Average) speed of traffic' (which must therefore assume that 50% of people are retards who don't know what they're doing, which is blatant nonsense), speed limits tend to fall by 10 or 20mph but the road layout and how it reads to drivers has not changed one bit.

If you forced 100 people in a room to look at a road and tell you the speed that would be appropriate, then lined them up in order of slowest to fastest, the speed chosen by the 85th person would be the 85th percentile and would probably be at or around the sensible limit. The fastest 15% would be the minority and it would seem reasonable to consider their faster speed choices as being for reasons of thrill-seeking or lack of experience or lack of education, therefore they can reasonably discounted. You wouldn't find the average of all the speed choices and say to, what, 50? of the people 'you are wrong, you are too fast' then set the limit lower than their choices. How is that reasonable if there is no majority??

Such 'average' speed limits make drivers switch off because it feels like everything is coming up so slowly that nothing is actually happening, and inattention is a far bigger cause of accidents than exceeding a posted speed limit (which is only about 7% IIRC). Why should we 'take our time' when there is no real reason for doing so? Would you do something if someone said to do it 'because I say so'? Are you a child? No, you're an adult with the ability to form opinions and make choices based on experience and skills.

By setting limits so low that it removes the need to think or pay attention, it says "you are stupid, you don't know what you are doing, nanny knows best, just do as we say or we will punish you". And if the limits are then rigidly enforced, through average speed cameras or continuous tracking and speed monitoring and enforcement by the methods I've already mentioned earlier, which the anti-speed, anti-car, tree-hugging, "Think of the childwen!!!!" brigade and the EU want to see in place ASAP, people are then forced to obey and just switch off and drive at the limit all the time because what is the point of thinking when it will just frustrate you? Why not look out the side window and think about what you're having for dinner or what the kids are doing at school instead? Which then means that people lose the skills and ability to actually notice when this limit is too high for the conditions or something happening in front of them, increasing danger when paying attention and driving to the conditions and road would have seen them faster where it is safe to do so but slower when necessary. This then leads to more crashes due to inattention, which then leads to more calls for lower speed limits, which when implemented leads to more inattention and dumbing down...

And, ultimately, people end up hating driving or are so bad at it that they welcome autonomous cars because they can then just switch off entirely and mindlessly swipe through f**king facebook rather than control their own existence.

If anyone genuinely believes that speed limits are set for safety reasons now, rather than local politics or Nimbyism or alleged 'quality of life' reasons that never actually materialise or to deter drivers from using a particular route by making it painfully slow to drive along at the limit, I would strongly suggest reconsidering that opinion.


I didn't drive for a few years as I couldn't afford it / lived near enough to walk to work, but now I'm doing around 25k a year commuting and personal mileage - I do, and will continue to, drive at a speed that's appropriate for the conditions and environment I'm passing through, whether it's above what the numbers on the pole say or below, because it means I'm paying attention and using my brain. Those who aren't are the ones trundling along at the front of a long train of people that are getting increasingly wound up and, sometimes, making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres because of it.

Driving will only get worse, enjoy driving and using your brain now because other people are doing all they can to stop you from doing so.
 
#70
But if the road is empty and clear and a speed of X is appropriate, why should we be forced to travel at X-10mph or X-20mph (or even X-30 or 40mph in some extreme instances)?

Since the Government changed the guidance from 'set the speed limit at or near the 85th percentile of traffic speeds' (which leaves only the fastest 15% of the drivers, i.e. the nutters, out of the equation and assumes that the majority of people, the 85%, are normal, sensible people making sensible choices) to 'use the mean (Average) speed of traffic' (which must therefore assume that 50% of people are retards who don't know what they're doing, which is blatant nonsense), speed limits tend to fall by 10 or 20mph but the road layout and how it reads to drivers has not changed one bit.

If you forced 100 people in a room to look at a road and tell you the speed that would be appropriate, then lined them up in order of slowest to fastest, the speed chosen by the 85th person would be the 85th percentile and would probably be at or around the sensible limit. The fastest 15% would be the minority and it would seem reasonable to consider their faster speed choices as being for reasons of thrill-seeking or lack of experience or lack of education, therefore they can reasonably discounted. You wouldn't find the average of all the speed choices and say to, what, 50? of the people 'you are wrong, you are too fast' then set the limit lower than their choices. How is that reasonable if there is no majority??

Such 'average' speed limits make drivers switch off because it feels like everything is coming up so slowly that nothing is actually happening, and inattention is a far bigger cause of accidents than exceeding a posted speed limit (which is only about 7% IIRC). Why should we 'take our time' when there is no real reason for doing so? Would you do something if someone said to do it 'because I say so'? Are you a child? No, you're an adult with the ability to form opinions and make choices based on experience and skills.

By setting limits so low that it removes the need to think or pay attention, it says "you are stupid, you don't know what you are doing, nanny knows best, just do as we say or we will punish you". And if the limits are then rigidly enforced, through average speed cameras or continuous tracking and speed monitoring and enforcement by the methods I've already mentioned earlier, which the anti-speed, anti-car, tree-hugging, "Think of the childwen!!!!" brigade and the EU want to see in place ASAP, people are then forced to obey and just switch off and drive at the limit all the time because what is the point of thinking when it will just frustrate you? Why not look out the side window and think about what you're having for dinner or what the kids are doing at school instead? Which then means that people lose the skills and ability to actually notice when this limit is too high for the conditions or something happening in front of them, increasing danger when paying attention and driving to the conditions and road would have seen them faster where it is safe to do so but slower when necessary. This then leads to more crashes due to inattention, which then leads to more calls for lower speed limits, which when implemented leads to more inattention and dumbing down...

And, ultimately, people end up hating driving or are so bad at it that they welcome autonomous cars because they can then just switch off entirely and mindlessly swipe through f**king facebook rather than control their own existence.

If anyone genuinely believes that speed limits are set for safety reasons now, rather than local politics or Nimbyism or alleged 'quality of life' reasons that never actually materialise or to deter drivers from using a particular route by making it painfully slow to drive along at the limit, I would strongly suggest reconsidering that opinion.


I didn't drive for a few years as I couldn't afford it / lived near enough to walk to work, but now I'm doing around 25k a year commuting and personal mileage - I do, and will continue to, drive at a speed that's appropriate for the conditions and environment I'm passing through, whether it's above what the numbers on the pole say or below, because it means I'm paying attention and using my brain. Those who aren't are the ones trundling along at the front of a long train of people that are getting increasingly wound up and, sometimes, making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres because of it.

Driving will only get worse, enjoy driving and using your brain now because other people are doing all they can to stop you from doing so.
In two years I've driven 165k at work plus my personal milage I go to Spa 3/4 times a year to drive my car at speed in safe conditions
 

BIFCAIDS

ClioSport Club Member
#71

BIFCAIDS

ClioSport Club Member
#72
I have a dash cam and its for my own piece of mind, if there is some knob on the road I usually show friends and once they've seen it's deleted.
 
#73
In two years I've driven 165k at work plus my personal milage I go to Spa 3/4 times a year to drive my car at speed in safe conditions
So you are using your skills and experience to judge a safe speed for the environment and conditions at Spa? Which is not dissimilar to what you do on the road?

No reason why the concept is not transferable between environments, it's just that the additional risks introduced in the public highway environment (and the fact it is not openly thrill-seeking) mean lower speeds are appropriate. By which I mean speeds that are lower than a racetrack (obviously) but which still enable one to make reasonable progress.

For example, if you'd happily been driving round Spa at your usual speed then someone came out and said "you must drive 20mph slower at all points around the track because of the noise / air quality / children / polar bears / etc", you'd soon get bored and switch off once out on track again because it was excessively slow for no reason. Your skills would suffer because you wouldn't be driving and using your brain. You may even decide to stop going, which is exactly what the anti-car people would want.

Exactly the same is true of road driving. It is not an environment dedicated solely to individuals' thrill-seeking, but making reasonable progress should be the norm, not forbidden.
 

DrR

ClioSport Club Member
#74
I agree, when I've driving along stupidly slowly, I get bored, pay less attention to what's going on etc.

When I'm making progress I'm much more aware of what's going on/not falling asleep from boredom.
 
#75
Remember, most drivers out there are utterly s**t at it.

I wouldn't trust most people I see walking down the street to be in charge of over a ton of hot, moving metal parts.
 
#76
So you are using your skills and experience to judge a safe speed for the environment and conditions at Spa? Which is not dissimilar to what you do on the road?

No reason why the concept is not transferable between environments, it's just that the additional risks introduced in the public highway environment (and the fact it is not openly thrill-seeking) mean lower speeds are appropriate. By which I mean speeds that are lower than a racetrack (obviously) but which still enable one to make reasonable progress.

For example, if you'd happily been driving round Spa at your usual speed then someone came out and said "you must drive 20mph slower at all points around the track because of the noise / air quality / children / polar bears / etc", you'd soon get bored and switch off once out on track again because it was excessively slow for no reason. Your skills would suffer because you wouldn't be driving and using your brain. You may even decide to stop going, which is exactly what the anti-car people would want.

Exactly the same is true of road driving. It is not an environment dedicated solely to individuals' thrill-seeking, but making reasonable progress should be the norm, not forbidden.
Look Iam not trying to start an argument because your points are valid for 20% of the drivers.But the rest need re training from entering motorways from slip roads to the list is endless @White16valver but more speed more nutters having Accidents
 
#77
Look Iam not trying to start an argument because your points are valid for 20% of the drivers.But the rest need re training from entering motorways from slip roads to the list is endless @White16valver but more speed more nutters having Accidents
I think we are both in agreement, then - less dumbing down and more education would create better drivers :) (which would mean less need for constant monitoring!)
 
#78
Can see the point for your fleet, but how many people are getting tripped up by there own cameras and could it of been worse for your company if you had them, as in your drivers causing more of the accidents? ,on a different note could people get sued for privacy in the future?
If it was our drivers causing the accidents due to shoddy driving, they wouldn't have jobs anymore and we'd employ better drivers. It would be better for the company as we'd get rid of the dead wood and employ safer drivers.

You can't sue someone for filming you in public. it's public. Try suing the high street shops filming you on a daily basis, let me know how that goes. It's the same principle.
 

cat171

ClioSport Club Member
#79
Which ones have you lot got ?
Make, price & place of purchase will help me. I'm thinking of getting my dad one, dunno if that's a good though though lol!!!

Also, can you wire them into separate cars, ie hard wire them, but take the camera off and plug it into another car you've wired up ?
And is best to them for the back of the car as well ?
 

Top