Why aren't front and rear cameras for accident/security standard?

[Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 11:47
Last edited 29/05/2016 - 11:47

Or at least a standard option?

I've been looking into a new car recently and have been really surprised that it's not even an option on the table for most cars I've looked at. It feels like it'd be a really good selling point - "you never had to worry about convincing insurance companies who's at fault!" and "if someone keys your car you might catch them on video!" the salesman will say, and it won't be entirely bullhonkey.

They could build them in with design in mind, hide the wires and device itself within the chassis, it would generally look a lot better than the after sales off brand options could ever look.

The quality of cameras has been good and cheap enough for years. They have huge bargaining power and the parts would cost them nothing, the biggest expensive would be in the design and production line changes and even then they'd be relatively minor tweaks.

Why isn't this a standard thing? Is there some big down side I'm missing?

Automotive

Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:41

          That too relates to being legal to have them, which is not in question.

          The question is whether their recordings are considered by courts/judges.

        • Sawtell on 29/05/2016 - 16:42

          @tantryl: …and my point is they are every day in court.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:49
          +2

          @Sawtell: how do you know that? Can you cite a case?

          For the record: I'm still neutral on this. dashcamsaustralia.com.au says they aren't used in court. jimbobaus says they aren't used in court. You say they are used in court.

          No-one has provided cases or legislation that prove their point.

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 16:51

          @tantryl:

          The question is whether their recordings are considered by courts/judges.

          let's put it this way. if dashcam recordings are inadmissible in court, then you would've "lost" $60 or whatever you paid for the item + other costs. if they are admissible, then you'll most likely win an insurance claim and not be liable to pay the excess.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:52
          +1

          @whooah1979: this thread isn't about that.

          It's about why manufacturers don't include the option.

        • Sawtell on 29/05/2016 - 16:56

          @tantryl: Go and sit in on any traffic contested hearing in the local court and you will see dash cam footage from police vehicles being submitted/played as evidence.

          Have a look at Austlii :

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolea…

          Nearly all the defended matters for police pursuits involving highway patrol have video tendered as evidence.

          Maybe the reason why the dash cam video is not used in civil court (as the subsequent step for a civil claim) is that there is no real question of liability once the video has been served?

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 16:57

          @tantryl:

          It's about why manufacturers don't include the option.

          wait. my reply is to the use of dashcam recordings in court by either parties. i think sawtell and jimbobaus are discussing the same thing.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 16:59

          @whooah1979: Yes. That came up as a reason why manufacturers don't include the option - because they can't (arguably) be used in court. Your explanation of "it's only $60 bucks, who cares if you can use it or not" isn't really relevant to why manufacturers don't include the option.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:02

          @Sawtell: So your argument is purely about police cam usage?

          jimbob and dashcamsaustralia.com.au are talking about the general public usage and not just that it's not used because fault has already been determined. According to jimbob:

          I work in car accident claims for an insurance company and we are not permitted to use dash cam footage as evidence in determining fault, courts will also not accept the footage as evidence unless you have the other party sign a "release" accepting they were filmed and that they were ok with it.

          and dashcamsaustralia:

          we aren’t aware of any Australian court cases where a consumer’s dashcam video has been used in evidence

        • whooah1979 on 29/05/2016 - 17:09

          @tantryl:
          so it's ok for the crown to use dashcam recordings supplied by individuals as evidence in a criminal court case, but the same dashcam recordings are inadmissible in a civil court case?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:12

          @whooah1979: I don't know. Is it? That's the question.

          If it isn't so - can we see a non-police case where the footage was used?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:22

          @tantryl:

          Your link said they haven't been used in court. This doesn't mean though that they cannot be used in court. Two different things.

          The likelihood would be that upon provision of dashcam video the case would be conclusively resolved in a particular party's favour and hence not proceed to court.

          If you were a defendant in such a case and you a) know that you were at fault and b) have seen the brief to be presented against you which includes conclusive video evidence proving you were at fault, you would be absolutely nuts to attempt a defence against yourself. An at-fault defendant in such a circumstance would be looking to resolve the case with the least amount of funds possible.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:29

          @KaptnKaos: I'd agree if we didn't have jimbob saying it was being rejected by courts.

          Again this leaves me neutral as jimbob hasn't been able to provide a case where dashcam footage was rejected.

          How do I determine which is true?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 17:32

          @tantryl:

          No need to determine what is or isn't true.

          I would recommend having one installed anyway (which is a very easy DIY job) and chances are that you'd not only find personal use out of it but it'd also help in other third-party cases.

          But if your insurance company or court doesn't accept it, you should be prepared to strongly argue your point and ask for an explanation as to why such evidence is inadmissible.

          Having a dashcam and not being able to use that video (which you should be able to despite what insurance sharks and courts say) is far better than not having a dashcam and realising you could've supported your case with the footage from it.

          The other option would be seeking professional legal advice regarding the legality of dashcams and dashcam videos as evidence. A forum will not give you that answer despite what people might claim their credentials are.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 18:08

          @KaptnKaos: Again, that's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about why manufacturers don't include the option.

  • spackbace on 29/05/2016 - 17:15
    +3

    I've thought the same thing, but long and short of it is probably the cost involved in implementing it, and the requirement of the average car buyer. Dash cams have only just come about in the last 18 months in terms of some sort of proper quality. Now in terms of implementing them into a car, I think they've only just now reached a quality where a manufacturer could use them. But now it's gonna be a few years before you'd actually see a production car roll out with one.

    Look to BMW 7-series for features that 1 day will make it down to standard cars :P

    Oh and the earlier discussion about quality of reverse cameras is just stupid. The quality of cameras in cars over the last year or so is amazing, very clear.

    • mit on 29/05/2016 - 23:01

      Agreed. It doesn't make anybody any money to enforce such safety devices. All costs get passed on to the consumer and the majority of the consumer's obviously don't want to be paying more, not to mention the amount of retarded drivers not wanting their 'skills' recorded anywhere.

      The government will take a while to come around on making it mandatory if ever…

      Just imagine if they actually decided to actually eradicate speeding by installing GPS tracking speed recorders in our cars. Add the front/read dash cams to that and you have a fullproof system almost. EG. "We found you speeding on our GPS systems, oh you were speeding away from a dangerous situation, lemme just check your dash cams - oh I don't think so…"

      You could also imagine the freedom of whatever and privacy issues with that one but with cigs going up to $40 a pack I don't think it's out of their ability.

  • Mrgreenz on 29/05/2016 - 17:59
    +1

    Probably be 50 cars a week in for warranty camera repairs in each dealership

  • ChickenTalon on 29/05/2016 - 18:02
    +3

    Same reason all cars don't come with waffle makers. Even though everyone would love one i'm sure, and they should be simple if you're buying thousands, right?? Can you imagine the sales staff describing hot fresh waffles to prospective new car buyers?

    They are a significant cost and you're over simplifying it.

    There is a heap of work that needs to go into the design and integration into the rest of the electronics and systems. And you're talking about recording and storage etc. All of which requires extensive integration work and then it becomes another supported system for warranty. These are just some of the factors.

    There is also no great push from the public for these. You need to consider what people are shopping for when purchasing a car. What do people consider? Brand, engine performance, colour, looks, safety, economy, navigation, size, size of the spoiler etc etc. I'm guessing footage of accidents and miscreants doesn't rate highly in purchasing decisions, much like waffle maker probably isn't on a whole lot of check lists, although it is on mine.

    That's why we don't have waffle makers, nespressos, ice dispensers and front & rear cameras recording everything in cars. Demand isn't there for the cost. Who knows, might change in the future.

    Here is an informative documentary on the topic :)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw9gaEiQAxY

    • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 22:04
      +2

      Next car I buy better have a waffle maker, that's not negotiable! ;)

  • UFO on 29/05/2016 - 20:32
    +20

    Wow. A lot of misinformation in this thread.

    I can assure you…. 100% certain and with absolute clarity, that video footage taken in public (ie mobile phone, dash cam, unmonitored security camera) IS admissible in court.

    Police can and will seize such footage as evidence, and prosecute accordingly.

    I was intimately involved in a situation where a front mounted camera on a public bus witnessed an altercation that spilled out onto the road.
    No permission from the parties was received, yet that footage showed exactly who did what and who hit who.

    Result: GBH Assault on one person, Common Assault on another, and traffic offences on the car who drove them away.

    YOU DO NOT NEED PERMISSION OF THOSE YOU ARE FILMING IN A PUBLIC PLACE, PROVIDED THAT PUBLIC PLACE IS NOT A PRIVATE AREA (like a toilet).

    Police and the Court LOVE CCTV or mobile phone footage. Use it daily.

    I cant express to you words how sure I am of this. Trust me. Dash Cams are GOLD when it comes to evidence ;).

    And if an insurer doesn't accept it, take them to small claims court with a police job number. Watch how quick they change their tune.

    • ChickenTalon on 30/05/2016 - 00:07
      +6

      Thankyou. There is an absolute torrent of useless & wrong information above. Mr works-in-insurance-claims saying it's "ILLEGAL". lol

      Any thing you do in public can be filmed (except for things covered by decency laws, think upskirting or filming in toilets), this is pretty clear. Only issues relate to making audio recordings, where there are prohibitions on AUDIO recording without consent of all parties. Even then, if your conversation is conducted loudly in a public space then you can argue there was no expectation of privacy.

      You only have an expectation of privacy in a private property, even then anything visible from a public space is considered done in public. You can be filmed by anyone on your front lawn, or even through your front window, so long as they are filming from public land.

      Insurance companies are the biggest recorders of people in public spaces for legal purposes. They employ heaps of PIs for insurance compensation claims, PIs film people from public spaces.

      Many cyclists have recorded incidents with cars and successfully had the video evidence used to determine fault. As you said the cops love it because it makes their jobs so much easier.

      • effgee on 30/05/2016 - 21:45

        Mr works-in-insurance-claims saying it's "ILLEGAL". lol

        anything that results in an insurance company having to make a payout would be against internal policy, so close to illegal in the insurance company's eyes

  • Azn310 on 29/05/2016 - 23:30

    I reckon Auto companies are still thinking about how people can abuse the cameras. For instance, someone parks their car in front of your house and record, how do you feel? What if that same car is parked there for 7 days straight, and then it dissappear, a few days later your house is broken into when you are not home? That is just one example. People will think of smarter ways to abuse the system.

    • ChickenTalon on 29/05/2016 - 23:56

      No different from a person, say a Private Investigator, doing it. You can stand or camp out on public space and pretty much film what you like. Exceptions are for decency and lewd conditions etc etc. Courts use evidence like this all the time for compo claims. All 100% admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings.

      Friend is a PI (he has both the coolest and most frightening work stories). He once spent a week hidden in the long grass of a roundabout filming a house. Sounds creepy, but it's perfectly legal. Under the law, there is no expectation of privacy for any activities visible from a public space.

      Only issues would be filming from a private residence. I.e. You can't go to the house next door and film over the fence, there is an expectation of privacy.

      • Sawtell on 30/05/2016 - 08:22
        +1

        You can film over the back fence. If you rear yard is visible from other property then that is bad luck. Have a look at Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1937/45.html

        With regard to the question of privacy, no doubt the owner of a house would prefer that a neighbour should not have the right of looking into his windows or yard, but neither this court nor a court of law will interfere on the mere ground of invasion of privacy; and a party has a right even to open new windows, although he is thereby enabled to overlook his neighbour's premises, and so interfering, perhaps, with his comfort.

        • ChickenTalon on 30/05/2016 - 08:30

          Useless and unrelated case

          You most definately cannot film your neighbors over your back fence.

          Looking is a different thing entirely. For example if your neighbors back yard is visible standing on your rear porch then you aren't going to get into much trouble for looking over. But you will definately be in strife for filming.

        • Sawtell on 30/05/2016 - 08:44
          +1

          @ChickenTalon: That case is the basis for privacy law in Australia. Another one for you : ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html

          Cheif Justice Gleeson:

          There is no bright line which can be drawn between what is
          private and what is not. Use of the term ‘public’ is often a
          convenient method of contrast, but there is a large area in
          between what is necessarily public and what is necessarily private.
          An activity is not private simply because it is not done in public. It
          does not suffice to make an act private that, because it occurs on
          private property, it has such measure of protection from the public
          gaze as the characteristics of the property, the nature of the
          activity, the locality, and the disposition of the property owner
          combine to afford.

        • ChickenTalon on 30/05/2016 - 09:11

          @Sawtell: for all intents and purposes you can't. While you'll get away with a snap or brief film (provided there is nothing lewid happening) much more than that will land you in trouble. It's not a privacy concern, rather it comes me under nuisance.

        • Sawtell on 30/05/2016 - 09:51

          @ChickenTalon: It could be a nuisance but your blanket statement that you can not film your neighbours over your back fence is wrong.

          There is no law (in NSW anyway) which prohibits you from installing a cctv camera on your land that records everything your neighbour does in his yard and, if the neighbour has no curtains, everything he does inside his house which is visible from the windows that are covered by the camera.

        • johnno07 on 31/05/2016 - 00:28
          +1

          @Sawtell: All the excerpt from Gleeson CJ's ruling establishes is that there is no clear definition of what is "private". You have to take a number of factors into account. So, as with all things law, there is no black and white - merely a spectrum of likely to unlikely - with a magistrate, judge, or justice having the final say.

        • ChickenTalon on 31/05/2016 - 03:56

          @Sawtell:

          There is no law (in NSW anyway) which prohibits you from installing a cctv camera on your land that records everything your neighbour does in his yard and, if the neighbour has no curtains, ….

          There are laws. Blanket statements like that are wrong. Set up your CCTV and record your under 18 neighbour taking a swim or without clothes on. You will find your self on the wrong end of some serious laws.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2016 - 09:17

    I think that the car industry and the insurance industry go hand in hand and even though it serves the consumer, they do not want every one of them to have one because it would take away profit from the insurance industry as it makes it easier to make claims and also relieves the driver of fault because of the readily accessible evidence.

    • tomsco on 30/05/2016 - 09:30

      But at the same time, it is easier to chase the guilty party. Could mean less costs in reaching a verdict (although enforcement may still be an issue).

    • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:28

      The (net) costs are still the the same even if "fault" is decided, just one insurer pays over the other. My understanding is the car insurance industry no longer tries to "profit" from an incident, just focusing on recovering reasonable costs.

      Really the only "saving" i see is if the incident gets to court (and incur associated legal/court costs). I do wonder how many cases actually go that way to determine fault.

  • Mumbles on 30/05/2016 - 13:38

    I don't think front and rear camera's will ever become standard equipment. There are no countries that have made them compulsory (like seatbelts + ABS).
    There are no countries around the world where there are discussions or lobbying to make camera's mandatory.

    Not every driver has a need for them. Half of Australians live out in the country rural areas. For these car owners they are less likely to benefit from luxuries like automatic reverse parking, blind spot warning, reversing cameras, …, etc

    Legislators would probably be reluctant to make camera's mandatory as it would take away jobs. Imagine if every car had a camera and NOBODY bought car insurance. Insurance companies would lose revenue, lawyers would lose revenue, smash repairers couldn't overcharge repairs to insurance companies, drivers would drive safer, cars would not be written off pre-maturely and less new cars would be bought. People safety is very different to car safety!

    I think the USA and other non-Australian car markets would benefit more for recording things like Police brutality/police infractions/corruption. Australia is super in terms of law and order.

    If a camera could get me out of a speeding fine or a miscarriage of justice then I'd probably find value. Though it wouldn't take long for Australian legislators to outlaw such devices as they did with radar detectors and lidar jammers.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2016 - 13:49

      No car accessory options are mandatory. Government mandated GPS, floor mats and spoilers aren't a thing. I find it weird that more than one person thought this needed addressing.

      • StewBalls on 30/05/2016 - 16:07
        +1

        Pretty sure there's some Common Law mandating the use of fuzzy dice in some states & territories…

        • effgee on 30/05/2016 - 21:47
          +1

          nah, nopt whole states/territories, just a couple of suburbs and regions in each state

      • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:24

        It wouldn't make them an accessory option if it was mandatory.

        You can't sell a stock vehicle that doesnt meet ADR

    • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:32

      There are no countries that have made them compulsory (like seatbelts + ABS).

      The closest thing i can think of is in russia, there are two main insurance companies for comprehensive. One is insanely expensive, and the other is cheap, but requires you to have a dashcam. Hence why we see so many dashcam vids from there,

      Legislators would probably be reluctant to make camera's mandatory as it would take away jobs. Imagine if every car had a camera and NOBODY bought car insurance. Insurance companies would lose revenue, lawyers would lose revenue, smash repairers couldn't overcharge repairs to insurance companies, drivers would drive safer, cars would not be written off pre-maturely and less new cars would be bought. People safety is very different to car safety!

      Costs incurred are still pretty much the same, all it does is:

      • make it easier to prove at fault
      • (arguably) discourage drivers from pulling dangerous stunts.

      Either way, your car is still damaged and it needs to be fixed.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2016 - 08:20

    I feel like a camera just isn't enough. The cameras really need to be 360 degrees. Car manufacturers should add 'black boxes' to cars (on top of the current OBD computers). In addition to video, they should store cabin audio, gps data (speed, location, etc), possibly weather/traffic data. The information should be easily accessible to owners and authorities (with appropriate permits).

    • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:35

      The cameras really need to be 360 degrees

      360 degree cameras are still pretty crappy. Just look at the few techmoan has reviewed.

      http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/interactiv…

      click "crash type" tab.

      Really the only thing a side camera helps with is "side swipe or lane change". However, a front facing camera would show thing like indication attempts/green light etc as you're passing. I think you're overvaluing side view cameras

      • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2016 - 17:42

        360 degree cameras are still pretty crappy

        Probably - but I think that's where technology should be heading for car cams.

        I think you're overvaluing side view cameras

        It would also help with vandalism, accidents while parked, etc. They could also be used as a substitute for CCTV on streets/garages where they don't have fixed CCTV camera. Maybe even google streetview type mapping, with 'live streams' available from multiple cars.

        My point is that car camera technology is capable of so much more than what's currently available … just need a disrupt-er to come along and shake things up a bit.

        With regards to 360 vs front and rear only in today's market, I doubt the manufacturing cost for 360 camera is much more.

  • tonyjzx on 31/05/2016 - 11:55

    I think the top of the line Range Rovers have 360 degree cams.

    What you'll find is that the car companies are extremely slow to react. How long did it take MP3 radios to appear as standard? I'd say a few markets should be mandatory eg. Russia.

    But even Russia with its hundreds of millions of people cannot push manufacturers to do it so what hope does 25 million?

    • humdingaling on 31/05/2016 - 12:07

      Russia is internet favourite for dash cam
      the amount of random things caught on camera is both hilarious and horrifying

      not far behind would be china
      where people would throw themselves in front of cars to claim compo

    • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:38

      I think the top of the line Range Rovers have 360 degree cams.

      FYi, the side cameras point at the ground.

      http://www.evoqueownersclub.co.uk/forum/360-camera_topic3831…

      have had two half day LR experience days where it's been fitted to the car we used, it's good, I could see it being a bonus for stopping you kerbing the wheels but not much else.

  • Davo1111 on 31/05/2016 - 13:21

    There are certain countries where dashcams are actually illegal. I dont expect to see them implemented for a while

  • Dr Phil on 31/05/2016 - 14:02
    -1

    They are available aftermarket and quite cheap. Furthermore the RIGHT cars do have them. So you are probably looking at the wrong cars if you require these as standard option. Hence, There is no basis for this complaint. Stop winging and Goodbye

    • tomsco on 31/05/2016 - 14:31
      +1

      Stop winging and Goodbye

      Fly away?

  • Dr Phil on 31/05/2016 - 14:04

    Holdens can now park themselves. Who needs a rear camera?

  • Dr Phil on 31/05/2016 - 14:05

    Whats wrong with your mirrors? Foolproof technology. Never fails. As for the front camera that will only prove you wrong.

    • tomsco on 31/05/2016 - 14:31
      +2

      Who are you talking to?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join