Assembly Bill 1942 - Vehicle Dashboard Camera (law, shop, safer)

[NewToCA]

For those of us concerned about the Government's continuing expansion into areas of individual privacy, this has the potential to be another nightmare:

Lawmakers are considering controversial new legislation this week that would allow vehicles to be equipped with dashboard cameras to record the moments leading up to accidents.

The proposed law, AB1942...currently allows devices to record video, audio, how fast and which direction the vehicle is traveling, a history of where your car has been, steering and brake performance and seat belt usage.


Proposed Law Would Put Video Cameras In Cars - cbs13.com

[Fontucky]

I'm not seeing requiring, I'm seeing allowing and permitting.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

I'm not seeing requiring, I'm seeing allowing and permitting.

Agreed, which is why I stated "potential" nightmare. Having the technology installed is the beginning of the process, then the process to make it "required" subsequently takes place.

Why would anyone want this in their vehicle? Why record where the vehicle has previously been?

Even the ACLU questioned why vehicle travel history needs to be part of the recording.

[Curmudgeon]

This bill is purely permissive, thus far. From the Legislative Counsel's digest:

AB 1942, as amended, Fletcher. Windshield:
Vehicles: windshields: video event recorder.
Existing law prohibits any person, except as specified, from
driving any motor vehicle with any object or material placed,
displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that
obstructs or reduces the driver's clear view through the windshield
or side windows. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

This bill would additionally exempt from these provisions a video
event recorder, as defined, that has the capability of monitoring
driver performance, which may be mounted in a 7-inch square in the
lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, in a
5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the
driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, or in a 5-inch
square mounted to the center uppermost portion of the interior of the
windshield.

The bill would also require, among other things, that a vehicle
equipped with a video event recorder have a notice posted in a
visible location which states that a passenger's conversation may be
recorded. Because this bill would create a new crime, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require video
event recorders to store no more than 30 seconds before and after a
triggering event. If a person is driving for hire in a vehicle with a
video event recorder, the bill would require the person's employer
to provide, upon request, unedited copies of the recording to the
person, free of charge, and within 5 days of the request.

However, this may simply be a first step. Given the Legislature's "we know what's best for you" approach to governance and its penchant for enacting "nanny" law, it wouldn't surprise me if it became mandatory at some point and limited an owner's ability to alter or shut down the process.

Organizations in formal support of the bill are the California State Sheriffs' Association, for whatever reason, DriveCam which likely manyfactures the hardware and MACTEC, an electronic engineering firm that likely was instrumental in developing the software.

I really like the recording issue!

Now go follow the money!

[esmith143]

Why would anyone want this in their vehicle? Why record where the vehicle has previously been?

The objective of the bill is to allow you to keep a video recorder that will have the ability to clear you of fault in the event of an accident, and to install one in your teenage kid's car because that is likely to encourage him to drive safer.

it wouldn't surprise me if it became mandatory at some point and limited an owner's ability to alter or shut down the process.

You're too conspiracy-minded.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by esmith143

You're too conspiracy-minded.

Or conversly, you're too trusting or naive.

I spent the better part of 20 years as a state legislative analyst working with and testifying before the Legislature. I have a pretty good idea of how they think (and that's a gift) and operate. That goes for lobbyists as well!

[Fontucky]

Not doing A because B might happen is dumb. You go ahead and do A, then watchdog the **** out of it so B doesn't happen. My heroes at the ACLU will watch it like hawks.

I might get killed by an out of control truck on the 4 mile trip between here on the grocery store, but that doesn't stop me from my weekly shopping.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Not doing A because B might happen is dumb. You go ahead and do A, then watchdog the **** out of it so B doesn't happen. My heroes at the ACLU will watch it like hawks.

I might get killed by an out of control truck on the 4 mile trip between here on the grocery store, but that doesn't stop me from my weekly shopping.

I would agree, ABC - Anywhere But California!

Yeah, they're formally opposed as are the Teamsters. Hmm, wonder why!

My only ACLU heroes are pushing up daisies. Of course, that's why I like them - just the way they are!

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yeah, they're formally opposed as are the Teamsters. Hmm, wonder why!

We must have read different articles. I don't see where the ACLU are formally opposed, or informally opposed for that matter.

[RedJacket]

If this bill passes it could put a real damper on a woman's willingness to please Mr. Happy while your cruising down the highway.