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 tooFrom 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.
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.
#2 can be seen all over facebook and youtubeI 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.
It's only a matter of time before they start making radar-gun dashcams.#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.
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.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'
Just leave 30mins earlier and take your time do you drive for a living @White16valverPart 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/publications/local-transport-today/news/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
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)?
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 conditionsBut 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.
If it wasn't for these dashcams/helmetcams, we wouldn't know who Ronnie Pickering is
Who the f***s that??
Best string of quotes I've seen on this forum in years, made my Day.He'll show you who he is.
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?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
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 AccidentsSo 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.
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!)
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.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?