Birbla

Discussion summary

The EU mandates driver monitoring cameras in new cars, sparking mixed reactions. Some users express privacy concerns, while others see it as part of regulatory trends.

What the discussion says

  • Many users oppose the surveillance features, citing privacy and personal freedom.
  • Some mention the availability of second-hand cars without such systems.
  • Others criticize the EU's broader regulatory approach, including self-driving car bans.
“I want a car without inside cameras, without systems beeping, blinking, nor vibrating at me.”
— lifestyleguru
“Europe is the nanniest of nanny states, it's inconceivable that people actually want to live like this.”
— Invictus0

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I found this useful: https://seeingmachines.com/understanding-advanced-driver-dis...

    From that article:

    "Like DDAW systems, ADDW systems must function without the use of biometric information, including facial recognition, of any vehicle occupants. It must also operate within a closed-loop system, only recording and retaining data on the device that is necessary for the system to function."

    by jamesgill
  • but also: "ADDW systems use cameras and sensors to track a driver’s head position, eye movements, and gaze direction"

    and

    "only recording and retaining data on the device that is necessary for the system to function"

    Not sure why such stuff would need to be retained to function. Also if they need to track head position and gaze direction those definitely have to be higher resolution camera and/or pointing directly at your head - so at least capable to store biometric information and hacked remotely since more cars are having telemetry.

    by pzo
  • This stuff is a nightmare for new manufacturers and is usually lobbied-for by large OEMs or to keep startups out of the market or as a patent trap

    The most recent regulatory disaster that blew up a bunch of startups was mandatory lane keep assist for trucks in overseas western markets, which meant all new startups needed fancy steering racks which are very much not off-the-shelf, and it virtually tripled the cost of the software stack too

    by aetherspawn
  • If I hate anything about the EU, its the morons writing regulations for cars. My car constantly distracts me with some beeps, sometimes loud enough to be dangerous. Its surely one of the reasons far right is on the rise -- with things like 'drivers party' in some European countries winning serious votes. I spend 1-2hrs in the car each day, and I hate what those regulations did to driving.

    (Worst offenders: Japanese cars since they seem to take the regulations most seriously. Least annoying: generally BMW, Volvo, though they are both getting worse each year).

    by aenis
  • On the other hand, as someone living in a city with good public transit, I think cars should be regulated more. Cars make living in such a city a worse experience. They are loud and produce pollution (including EVs).
    by preisschild
  • Maybe those who write the regulations have drivers, and don’t experience the downsides to their own regulations
    by garbagewoman
  • Totally insane that they enshrine this stuff in law without a reference design and corresponding data to validate its effectiveness.
    by davemp
  • More than once did my lane assistant try to run me into the barrier in a construction zone. You can turn it off, however its on again after on the next start...

    And all this comes with insanely high priced repairs that you cant really DIY anymore.

    by thi2
  • forcing citizens to buy goods which are adversarial to them with their own money is rarely a good idea.

    paradoxically, citizens expect the government to be adversarial towards them in big things (see America) but it's the 'little' things which breed true contempt.

    sooner or later something will happen which will test the revealed preference of the population and everyone will suddenly discover that contempt is all that's left.

    by teravor
  • To start your car please look into camera and repeat: "Doritos™ Dew™ it right!"
    by mr_toad
  • "Doritos™ just Dew™ it™!"
    by DeluluDon
  • Brawndo is what your body craves. It's got electrolytes!
    by altern8
  • Don’t forget to drink a verification can.
    by Aaargh20318
  • I rented a car that had this feature and instantly hated it. I forget the make, but if it detected you were not looking at the road for a period of time, it would slam on the brakes and release. A way to jolt you awake.

    The problem was it routinely misclassified where I was looking, so I would get random brake slams which would panic me more.

    I returned it after a day and asked for a new car.

    by EagnaIonat
  • What the hell. I had my last rental just beep at me, and was astonished. But this... sounds literally unsafe.
    by bad_username
  • These systems are always beta tested on real drivers for years. Sometimes the tech improves often it doesn't. It's absolute madness
    by gib444
  • Theres already 3d models of heads you can print and attach to the rearview mirror to trick the ssensor! At least for the Teslas with Autopilot, but I can imagine it working just as well with other cars.
    by JimmyBiscuit
  • FWIW, the only time I ever had emergency brakes kick in are in spurious situations, like tight maneuvers or there is something ahead with plenty of headway to decide whether you should brake or not. A cyclist moved close to the traffic light fast and the car completely stopped. This one was a bit more dangerous because had there been someone behind, that driver would not have expected such an abrupt stop.

    >so I would get random brake slams which would panic me more

    Every time it happens, it hurts as I'm not prepared for it.

    Lane assist is also particularly bad as it handles some slight curves incorrectly, so it resists your driving. As a result with such cars I have my arms muscles tense up in anticipation of some turns.

    by woolion
  • I hired a Chinese Haval Car for a weekend last year (Australia). It started beeping at me for being distracted because I was checking for traffic in the other lanes - which is crucial when driving in a 4 lane highway.

    Of cause, I had never experienced such a beep before, so I had to take my eyes off the road tp look at the screen to see what the reason for the beeping was.

    Then, on a multlane highway, I would indicate to signal my intention to change lanes. The car then started beeping at me. After a couple of days I figured out it was warning me that there was a car in my blind spot. WTF! The whole point of indication is to signal my intention to move, so that the car in my blind spot creates room for me to merge into their lane.

    So - if you have to ignore beeps in order to drive safely - then the beeps are making the car more dangerous than not having them.

    Also, the cruise control +/- controls, would only ever move the speed up down to speeds that are divisable by 5. Such a joke, because if the speed limit is 110, your only options for cruise control at 105, 110, or 115. I won't use 110, because as soon as I go downhill, it will creep over 11, but 105 is too slow.

    It was such a relief to arrive home and return to driving my 2006 Suburu Forester. It felt much safer, didn't beep at me... and the cruise control +/- were in 1kmph increments.

    After that experience, my current plan is to keep this 20yo car running as long as possible.

    by Humphrey
  • > Then, on a multlane highway, I would indicate to signal my intention to change lanes. The car then started beeping at me. After a couple of days I figured out it was warning me that there was a car in my blind spot. WTF! The whole point of indication is to signal my intention to move, so that the car in my blind spot creates room for me to merge into their lane.

    "a turn signal is not a question, it is a statement"

    by red-iron-pine
  • If you turn your turn signal on while there’s a car in your blindspot that’s just bad driving. The other driver has no way of knowing if you’ve seen them or you’re about to swing out on them.
    by bb123
  • > would only ever move the speed up down to speeds that are divisable by 5.

    I have a seething hatred for UX that forces every setting to be in nonsensical chunks for no reason. Bad designers somehow think that it's "simpler" but it's just not. It's pushy, annoying and disrespectful to users to presume you know what values they should prefer. A good UX designer can always find a way to let users fine-tune settings to suite their individual differences.

    by mrandish
  • > The whole point of indication is to signal my intention to move, so that the car in my blind spot creates room for me to merge into their lane.

    That is definitely not the point of a turning signal. The car that's already in the lane has right of way and it's your responsibility not to plow into them. If they opt to make room for you, great (that's just courteous driving), but it's not an obligation.

    If you can't see the car in your blindspot when changing lanes, you're not doing a proper shoulder check, hence the blindspot warning.

    by interf4ce
  • Ford has had that since Blue Cruise 2.0, or thereabouts. It really shocked me how often it catches my attention being diverted. Things like talking to my passengers, adjusting the climate controls, or eating- I'm not even talking about 'advanced distractions' like my phone.

    It also seemed really accurate. I never remember it beeping at me when I was actually paying attention.

    It's totally plausible to me that this kind of nudge will save a lot of lives.

    by awakeasleep
  • > It also seemed really accurate. I never remember it beeping at me when I was actually paying attention.

    This is the exact opposite of my experience! The one time I tried BlueCruise, it went into "panic mode" every time I turned my head to check my blindspots.

    by Bratmon
  • Thank you! I often feel like I’m in the minority on this site, it is nice to hear someone else articulate my feelings. Driving is a privilege not a right. But since America decided to decimate public transit in the early 20th century (and stick with it) we’re stuck with cars. So I’m in favor of anything that makes it safer. Hopefully this crosses the pond.
    by sanmarzano
  • It gives me false positives when I'm holding the wheel at the top and my wrist is blocking line of sight from the camera. On the other hand, sunglasses have never tripped it all.
    by recursive
  • > adjusting the climate controls,

    Well if they hadn't removed climate control buttons, this would not be a concern!

    Not being able to easily adjust climate settings is very much a safety concern. And the fact that it beeps at you is them acknowledging it!

    by BeetleB
  • The Kia Niro EVs I drive at work have something that apparently detects driver fatigue. I don't know what sets it off but it starts beeping at fire alarm levels and makes the huge LCD constantly flash up warnings, usually before I've even left the yard. There doesn't appear to be a way to turn it off or stop it, so you just have to put up with a constant "BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING" for the whole journey.
    by ErroneousBosh
  • Owned a Ford Mustang Mach-e with BkueCruise for about 3 years now. No obvious false alarms about missing attention. Interestingly, it doesn't get confused by my sunglasses and still catches me looking aside for too long. I think it is a rather good implementation overall.
    by gmueckl